#dairy industry targets | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ajstein · 1 year ago

Text

Avoiding meat and dairy in one’s diet is indeed the biggest way to reduce one’s impact on the environment (continued)

[Posted on 26 Jun. 2023. Last updated on 18 Nov. 2024: sources added]

This post continues the list of articles discussing the greater sustainability of plant-based diets (i.e. of avoiding meat and dairy to reduce one’s impact on the environment), which are compiled here: https://ajstein.tumblr.com/post/174828704325/

New articles are added on top of the following list:

20% reduction in red meat and dairy consumption to achieve net zero https://www.foodbev.com/news/igd-report-recommends-20-reduction-in-red-meat-and-dairy-consumption-to-achieve-uk-s-net-zero-targe

A new report, by the Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD), Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) and EY, highlights that a 20% reduction in red meat and dairy consumption by 2050 will be necessary for the UK to achieve its net zero targets… The report was… aiming to create a robust evidence base illustrating the necessary measures required for the UK food and agriculture industry to meet net zero goals. It sets out a pathway for the country’s food system to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in line with a 1.5° Science Based Targets Initiative outcome, to meet the UK’s legally binding national decarbonisation goal. “Food production is responsible for around a third of global GHG emissions, so we must play our part in the transition to net zero… This plan shows the challenge that several 2030 targets are at risk of not being met, but that doesn’t mean without co-ordination we still can’t achieve net zero by 2050. We need a different approach, one that involves the whole end-to-end supply chain, and a more aligned dialogue across the industry and with government”… On the supply side, the report recommends higher uptake of lower carbon farming practices in the UK and overseas, including ending land-use change for imported commodities and reducing fertiliser emissions… Demand-side action will also be necessary… particularly in food waste reduction and changes to consumer diets. The report illustrates that red meat and dairy are ‘relatively carbon-intensive foods,’ emphasising that moving toward less carbon-intensive sources of protein will be key to reducing emissions… a 20% reduction in red meat and dairy consumption… would lower emissions by 9% assuming that protein is instead gained from pulses… While diet change will be needed, the extent will depend on progress made across other abatement measures… If more challenging and less mature agriculture emissions reduction measures could be delivered, together with food waste reductions, the report says the 20% reduction in meat and dairy by 2050 would be ‘sufficient to meet carbon targets,’ however it emphasises that more would be required if such measures were unsuccessful – and greater dietary shifts can support deeper cuts in emissions… Food waste reduction is identified as the other critical opportunity for demand-side emissions cuts… with the majority of food waste occurring in households…

The 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01822-1

Compounding the growth in energy-related greenhouse gas emissions, almost 182 million hectares of forests were lost between 2016 and 2022, reducing the world's natural capacity to capture atmospheric CO2. In parallel, the consumption of red meat and dairy products, which contributed to 11.2 million deaths attributable to unhealthy diets in 2021, has led to a 2.9% increase in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions since 2016… Food systems account for up to 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions… Actions in the agricultural sector—a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental degradation—are essential to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement… Globally, consumption-based agricultural emissions grew by 2.9% from 2016 to 2021, with 56% of 2021 emissions driven by the consumption of red meat and dairy… in very high HDI [Human Development Index] countries, consumption-based emissions have decreased by 6.2% from 2016 to 2021. However, these countries were still the biggest contributors to agricultural emissions, at 1·02 tCO2e per person in 2021, 60% of which derived from red meat and dairy consumption… Imbalanced diets with excessive intake of red and processed meat and low intake of high-quality plant-based foods are not only major drivers of greenhouse gas emissions but also increase health risks… Between 2016 and 2021, yearly diet-related deaths increased… from 10.4 to 11.2 million… These figures included 315 000 additional deaths from low intake of whole grains, vegetables, and legumes, 150 000 from high red meat intake, and 70 000 from high dairy intake in 2021, compared with 2016. The increases in diet-related disease burden were greatest in countries with very high HDI… Many of these deaths could be saved through dedicated dietary policies, which could play a major role in tackling climate change while building healthier, more resilient populations…

Greenwashing and denial won’t solve beef’s enormous climate problems https://drawdown.org/insights/greenwashing-and-denial-wont-solve-beefs-enormous-climate-problems

… as an environmental scientist, I became increasingly concerned that our appetite for beef was a significant contributor to climate change – plus a suite of other environmental problems. Scientists have repeatedly shown that high levels of beef consumption drive widespread deforestation, land degradation, river and watershed decline, aquatic and coastal ocean pollution, biodiversity loss, climate change, and more. Considering this litany of environmental impacts, I’ve come to realize our enormous appetite for beef may be one of the most environmentally worrisome issues confronting the planet… The livestock industry has spent enormous sums telling us fictitious stories of “environmentally-friendly” beef, rife with greenwashing and misinformation. They told us not to worry; we could maintain our excessive beef consumption and the environmental problems could be solved with a tweak or two. To bolster these myths, they have funded documentaries, think tanks, university labs, and social media influencer campaigns touting so-called “solutions” to beef’s environmental footprint… Communities near feedlots often have to contend with manure spills, water pollution, air pollution, and noxious odors. Manure production, alone, from feedlots is staggering. Feedlots in America – for cattle, hogs, chickens, and other animals – produce 2 billion tons of manure annually. (That’s 130 times the human feces produced in the country.) However, the environmental impacts extend far beyond feedlots and adjacent communities. Vast areas of productive cropland are dedicated to growing animal feed instead of crops that could directly nourish humans. In the United States, corn (mainly used for animal feed and ethanol) occupies nearly 100 million acres of prime farmland – about the size of California. Alfalfa, hay, and sorghum grown for animal feed and forage also cover enormous amounts of productive farmland. Globally, many of the best croplands no longer produce human food directly, raising concerns about food security – and this trend is accelerating. Devoting highly productive cropland to animal feed is an incredible waste of land and resources. To produce one calorie of edible feedlot beef requires about 30 calories of grain. (The beef industry claims ratios like 5:1 or 7:1, but they measure the animal’s weight, including bones, organs, and hides, not the edible meat it produces.) If we used this cropland for human food instead of animal feed, we could grow enough to nourish almost 4 billion people. Beyond its rabid consumption of productive cropland, animal feed is also responsible for massive amounts of water consumption, fertilizer use, pesticide application, soil erosion, and water pollution across the globe. One staggering example: Irrigating alfalfa and other feed crops consumes roughly half of the water withdrawn from the Colorado River. Much of the water in the American West is devoted to irrigating animal feed and forage crops. We’re not alone; there are plans to drain Senegal’s only notable lake to irrigate alfalfa that will be shipped to feed animals in Saudi Arabia. This wasteful story repeats itself all over the world. Pound-for-pound beef might be the most climate-polluting substance people regularly use. In a Science article from 2018, researchers found that beef emits – on average – roughly 100 kilograms of greenhouse gases per kilogram consumed. That’s a staggering amount. By comparison, burning one kilogram of coal – the dirtiest fossil fuel – releases about two kilograms of greenhouse gases. This means that kilogram-for-kilogram beef produces 50 times the emissions of coal. That’s why our high levels of beef production, consumption, and waste present a severe climate problem. Estimates vary, but it is clear that livestock production systems are responsible for a significant fraction of greenhouse gases, likely contributing roughly 14–15% of global emissions. For reference, the entire United States emits 10–11% of the world’s greenhouse gases. These greenhouse gases are emitted in several ways but primarily stem from land use and methane emissions from livestock and manure. Other sources include growing animal feed and the emissions from processing, transporting, packaging, and refrigerating beef. Moreover, a large fraction (about 38% in the United States) of beef is lost or wasted in the supply chain, contributing to additional emissions we must address. Globally, land use – mainly clearing forests, savannas, and grasslands for new grazing land or producing animal feed – is the largest driver of beef-related emissions. Tropical deforestation, particularly in the Brazilian Amazon, for grazing is a prime example. (Of note, the Amazon is also being cleared to produce soybeans for animal feed, particularly for pork production in Asia.) In other regions, degrading natural savannas, woodlands, and grasslands for beef releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Not only does clearing and degrading land for beef release CO2 into the atmosphere, but there is also an “opportunity cost” for absorbing carbon. As long as large tracts of land remain devoted to cattle grazing or feed production, we cannot return it to nature, where increasing vegetation cover and soil carbon levels could effectively remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Beyond the emissions from land use, the world’s 1.5 billion cattle also burp enormous quantities of methane. This potent greenhouse gas traps heat over 80 times more effectively than carbon dioxide in the near term. Manure piles are also a significant methane source. Livestock advocates often spread disinformation that these methane emissions are “natural” and benign. However, methane molecules emitted by cattle warm the atmosphere just as much as those emitted by fossil fuel production, even if the former results from biological processes. Another falsehood that gets bandied about is that today’s livestock only emit as much methane as wild animals did in the past. But, in reality, today’s livestock emit more methane than wild animals ever have – and we can see it accumulating in the atmosphere every year. First, there are more large livestock – 1.5 billion cattle, 1.2 billion sheep, 1 billion goats – today than there were wild ruminants in the past. Plus, today’s livestock emit more methane per animal than wild ruminants. Modern livestock are bred, fed, and raised for rapid growth and slaughter, which drives increased metabolism, digestion, and methane emissions. One of the proposed “quick fixes” to beef’s climate problem – often touted through greenwashing campaigns – is regenerative grazing. On the surface, the idea is compelling. Regenerative grazing aims to raise “grass-fed” cattle, without feedlots, while building up organic matter in the soil – essentially locking up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere – to “offset” emissions. It sounds like an elegant solution that works with nature, avoiding messy feedlots and appealing to many people’s sensibilities of how farming should work. But after carefully reviewing the evidence, it’s clear that regenerative grazing doesn’t live up to the hype. Why? … In short, grass-fed, regenerative beef is unlikely to provide all of its hoped-for climate benefits due to its higher methane emissions, increased land footprint, carbon opportunity cost, and limited ability to “offset” these emissions with soil carbon… … it’s clear by now that regenerative grazing, feed additives, or simply denying the problem aren’t going to make beef better for the planet automatically. Fortunately, the science is clear on what will: cutting rampant beef overconsumption and waste, especially in affluent regions… we should focus on areas where beef consumption is astronomically high, causing numerous health and environmental problems. To do this, people in rich countries… could eat tasty, plant-rich meals when possible… Americans still eat much more beef than most people – around four times the global average – and far more than is recommended for our health. Simple, common-sense efforts to reduce beef waste and shift American diets would have a dramatic impact, reducing emissions while improving human and environmental well-being… Needless to say, many Americans could stand to cut their beef consumption and eat more balanced meals with sensible portions of animal protein. It would be healthier for us and the planet. Besides moderating the excesses of our diet, another place to focus is curbing the enormous levels of waste in beef supply chains. We lose about 38% of meat consumed in the United States, split between retail and consumer losses. Cutting back on beef waste would automatically reduce the land, water, natural resources, and greenhouse gases it took to grow beef that is never eaten. Surely, we can all agree that this is an excellent place to focus. Curbing food waste and excessive beef consumption are the big solutions we need. The “quick fixes” proposed by the livestock industry do little to address the problem and primarily serve to maintain the status quo and their profits. Simple, common-sense efforts to reduce beef waste and shift American diets would have a dramatic impact, reducing emissions while improving human and environmental well-being. These are not extreme actions… We can take a sensible view of our current food system, make a few modest changes to curb waste and dietary excess, and dramatically improve our health, our farming systems, our environment, and our future.

The Hidden Environmental Costs of Food https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/09/19/climate/food-costs-protein-environment.html

Damage to the natural world isn’t factored into the price of food… our grocery bills would be considerably more expensive if environmental costs were included… The loss of species as cropland takes over habitat. Groundwater depletion. Greenhouse gases from manure and farm equipment. For years, economists have been developing a system of “true cost accounting” based on a growing body of evidence about the environmental damage caused by different types of agriculture. Now, emerging research aims to translate this damage to the planet into dollar figures… Large disparities between the retail price of food and its environmental costs are found in the proteins many of us eat every day... Beef has the highest environmental costs of the foods we examined, pound for pound, and it wasn’t close. Cattle are very inefficient at converting what they eat into body weight. For every 100 grams of protein a cow eats, less than 4 grams end up in the beef we eat. Cows are ruminants, and their burps send enormous amounts of planet-warming methane into the atmosphere… But most of the environmental cost of eating beef… comes from the amount of land that’s needed to grow cattle feed… Environmental costs can add up exponentially if cattle or their feed have displaced an ecosystem with high carbon-storage potential and rich biodiversity. Cheese has a higher environmental cost than chicken or pork on a pound-for-pound basis, which may seem surprising. Some of that comes from the methane emissions associated with cows (sheep and goats, too). But, although smaller than those of beef, the biggest effects from cheese stem from the cropland and pasture required to feed dairy cows. Cheese production is very water-intensive. Dairy cows require more water than their beef counterparts, often consuming 30 to 50 gallons of water per day… Chicken is less environmentally harmful than beef and pork, in part because chickens are smaller and grow faster, so it takes less food to fatten them up. They also emit much less methane than other livestock because they don’t ruminate like cows and they produce proportionally less manure than most animals we eat. Chicken producers have grown more efficient and can now get roughly one pound of meat for every two pounds of feed… But that has a cost to the welfare of animals… which the analysis doesn’t account for. “For them to grow like that, you need to grow them mostly in industrial conditions”… [And t]he amount of chicken we eat adds up. In the aggregate, though chickens eat far less than cattle, they consume a little over a third of the animal feed produced in the world, in the form of corn and soybeans. A lot of the chicken we produce is turned into nuggets and other processed foods. The factories that make those products have their own environmental costs, such as water use, which the analysis also doesn’t take into account. Soy is one of the fastest-growing crops in the world, but the vast majority of the world’s soy goes to animal feed. Eating soy directly would be a lot more efficient. Tofu, which is made of processed soy, is a way of doing that. It delivers about half as much protein as meat… and uses less water… If you’re looking for a low-impact source of protein, meet the humble chickpea. It has deep roots and requires little water or fertilizer, and so can be grown without irrigation even in arid regions. Most of the global crop is both produced and consumed in India, but the U.S. Mountain West states have started growing more chickpeas, which enrich soil when rotated with other crops… One-quarter cup of cooked chickpeas has the protein equivalent of one ounce of cooked meat… Recommended portions of meat are typically three or four ounces… so about a cup of cooked chickpeas would offer up a similar amount of protein. (The same goes for lentils, another low-impact protein)…

Creating a healthy and sustainable food environment https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19121-5

A shift away from diets high in animal-based foods towards diets high in plant-based foods is desirable considering human health, environmental sustainability, and animal welfare... Western diets containing a relatively high amount of meat and other animal-based foods and a relatively low amount of plant-based foods are related to multiple urgent health and sustainability issues. First, diets high in animal-based foods, and especially red and processed meat, rich in saturated fatty aid, are related to obesity. Omnivore diets are related to increased mortality rates and non-communicable diseases such as hypertension compared to vegetarian, and especially vegan diets. Lower health risks (e.g., diabetes 2 and coronary heart disease) are associated with diets relatively high in plant-based foods, and in particular with diets high in healthy plant-based foods such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes. Such healthy plant-based diets offer a protective cardiometabolic advantage compared to omnivorous diets that are also considered healthy, i.e., containing the recommended amount of vegetables, fruits and grains. Second, compared to diets relatively high in plant-based foods, diets high in animal-based foods, specifically red meat and dairy, have a higher environmental impact, i.e. more greenhouse gas emissions, land use, energy use and acidification- and eutrophication potential. Third, intensive livestock farming, as is common in Western countries, results in poor animal welfare. Consequently, there is increasing attention to moving away from animal-based foods as the main source of foods in diets, towards more plant-based foods. This shift is commonly referred to as the “protein transition”. The protein transition is not only endorsed by science, but also increasingly translated to practice via, inter alia, dietary guidelines for the general public…

Can gene-editing accelerate the protein shift? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102665

Reducing food waste and shifting consumption patterns towards more plant-based diets are important changes to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.... the transition towards more environmentally sustainable food systems entail increased consumption of plant-based proteins in favour of meat, since meat production causes higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions and requires larger land areas relative to other protein sources. Plant-based meat-analogue products provide a feasible transition towards increased plant-based diets and reduced meat consumption...

The environmental impact of mycoprotein-based meat alternatives https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100410

Within the global food system, the production of meat and meat-based food products is the largest driver of adverse environmental effects, contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe), land use, eutrophication, acidification, and scarcity-weighted water use... Due to increasing awareness of the adverse environmental impacts of meat production, as well as concerns around healthiness and animal welfare, the consumption of meat alternatives has risen… Several LCA studies have examined the environmental impact of meat alternative products and compared them to meat equivalents… This review, like its predecessors, concluded that plant-based meat alternatives have lower median emissions compared to animal-based protein sources such as cheese, eggs, chicken, fish, beef and pork... This systematic review identified production of mycoprotein base product as less GHGe [greenhouse gas emissions] intensive than production of either soy protein or pea protein. The overview also identified that mycoprotein-based mince, burger and sausage products had comparable GHGe to equivalent soy- and pea-based meat alternatives… Overall, mycoprotein- and plant-based meat alternative products were found to have broadly similar GHGe impacts, but all had GHGe much lower than for equivalent animal-based meats…

Shift in Diet to Reduce Land Footprint for Estonia https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-024-09996-4

We investigated how the land footprint of food consumption in Estonia could be decreased through socially acceptable moderate dietary changes while ensuring adequate nutrition… adopting an optimized diet resulted in a decrease in the consumption of milk and red meat, and an increase in the consumption of cereals, tubers, vegetable oils, and nuts, ultimately leading to an up to 56% reduction in the diet-related land footprint… The availability of agricultural land worldwide is limited, and demand for it is expected to increase due to a rise in the global population and a shift in food consumption patterns towards environmentally intensive products like meat and dairy… approximately 40% of the ice-free land surface is used for food production. This extensive use of land not only compromises carbon sinks but also disrupts the natural habitats of species and threatens the integrity of ecosystems… However, there is a significant potential for dietary changes to mitigate these environmental impacts and improve human health. Studies have shown that shifting towards sustainable diets that are rich in plant-based foods and low in animal-based products can reduce the environmental footprint of food production and improve public health outcomes… The health benefits of dietary change may derive from a reduction in red and processed meat consumption and increases in fruit and vegetable consumption… dietary changes offer greater environmental benefits than what producers can achieve currently or in the future through intensification of production. Therefore, shifting to a sustainable diet has been proposed as a key strategy to… ensure the well-being of both people and the planet.

Food and sustainability: the water footprint assessment of menus https://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v15n2.2024.53192

This… research… points out that animal-based foods, especially beef, present a high level of Water Footprint. In addition, the lack of vegetarian options on the menus was observed. These findings indicate the need to reformulate the menus under analysis so that they are more in line with the principles underlying sustainability… animal-based food comprises only 20.9% of the global weight of meal, nonetheless, on average, it counts 77.7% of global Water Footprint of the meal… those containing beef had the largest water footprints… Specialised studies show the positive environmental benefits of rising plant-based food consumption. Promoting the adoption of more balanced diets is crucial to mitigate environmental impacts due to the diets…

Consumer perceptions of healthy and sustainable eating https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665124004853

The current food system is unsustainable. It encourages unhealthy food choices, increasing the risk of non-communicable diseases, and has a substantial environmental impact, responsible for around a third of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Improving both public and planetary health will require dietary change. To promote this transition, it is crucial to understand how consumers conceptualise healthy and sustainable eating… Most consumers have a reasonable understanding of what constitutes a healthy diet… However, consumers perceptions of healthy eating often extend beyond these health-centric recommendations, incorporating concepts such as the pleasure of eating and supporting mental well-being. Sustainable eating, on the other hand, is less well understood. Most consumers overemphasise the importance of eating local, organic food and reducing packaging and underestimate or are unaware of the environmental impact of red meat consumption... Unhealthy diets are a major cause of death and disability... These poor-quality diets are typically characterised by the overconsumption of less healthful foods and nutrients (e.g. processed meats… Compounding this health burden, food systems exert a considerable strain on the environment… the global food system accounts for around a third of all greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe), approximately 70 % of all freshwater use, and is responsible for 78 % of fresh and oceanic eutrophication… even in a scenario where all fossil fuel emissions were immediately halted, the 1·5°C Paris Agreement target would remain elusive without substantial changes to the food system. There is now a broad consensus that improving both human and planetary health will require us to change the way we produce and consume food… The precise makeup of a sustainable diet depends on the country context… most organisations agree on some fundamental principles: only eat to meet ones’ energy needs, prioritise plant-based foods and moderate intakes of animal sourced foods, especially ruminant meat, limit the consumption of energy-dense and nutrient poor foods and minimise food waste…

Agriculture, forestry and food in a climate neutral EU https://www.agora-agriculture.org/publications/agriculture-forestry-and-food-in-a-climate-neutral-eu#downloads

The greenhouse gas intensity of food consumption is determined mainly by the proportion of plant-based products. Most greenhouse gas emissions occur in the production part of the value chain. Changes in transportation distance, in contrast, have a comparatively small impact on the greenhouse gas relevance of a diet… a decrease in livestock husbandry within the EU… results in a major contribution to lowering EU greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture… The shift in food consumption patterns and the resulting reduction in the demand for animal products leads to a strong reduction in animal feed demand… This alleviates pressure on land, creating opportunities for other uses, such as for biomass production for material use and for biodiversity conservation. The demand for imported feed also declines, resulting in a 60% reduction in the arable land needed in other parts of the world to produce that feed for the EU. This reduces pressure on global land resources and can indirectly contribute to global food security, biodiversity and climate change mitigation…

Regenerative agriculture is sold as a climate solution. Can it do it? https://www.npr.org/2024/09/10/g-s1-17179/regenerative-agriculture-climate-change-soil-carbon

Cows are one of the biggest sources of climate pollution in food, largely because their burps and manure release the potent planet heating gas, methane. In the search for solutions for cows’ climate pollution, some companies and governments have embraced “regenerative grazing,” or “rotational grazing.” Instead of cows grazing in one place, with rotational grazing farmers deliberately move cows from one place to another. Some food companies claim that rotational grazing can make the soil store enough extra carbon that it can negate cows’ methane pollution and make beef “climate-smart” or “carbon neutral.” But... this is another example of the climate benefits of soil carbon being oversold. “Folks have claimed that [regenerative grazing] pulls so much carbon out of the atmosphere and into the soils through healthier soil that it completely offsets or negates cattle's methane emissions... That's not correct.” Also, research finds that cows doing regenerative grazing on grasslands can use up to 2.5 times more land, which could lead to the loss of ecosystems that store carbon...

One of the most potent greenhouse gases is rising faster than ever https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/10/methane-emissions-increase-climate/

Emissions of methane — a powerful greenhouse gas — are rising at the fastest rate in recorded history… defying global pledges to limit the gas and putting the Earth on a path toward perilous temperature rise. New research… finds that methane levels in the atmosphere are tracking those projected by the worst-case climate scenarios. Because methane traps about 30 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time frame, the accelerating emissions will make it nearly impossible for the world to meet its climate goals… These extra methane emissions bring the temperature thresholds ever closer… human-caused methane emissions grew as much as 20 percent between 2000 and 2020 and now account for at least a third of total annual releases. The largest growth came from expanding landfills, booming livestock production, increased coal mining and surging consumption of natural gas. The report also uncovered worrying evidence that human disruptions have boosted the amount of methane released by lakes, marshes and other ecosystems… It’s the only greenhouse gas where we can reduce climate change in the next decade or two through emissions reductions… Yet the inverse is also true… As long as methane releases continue to grow, the world will feel dramatic and immediate temperature rise every year that methane releases continue to grow… In contrast with carbon dioxide emissions, which have plateaued over the last decade, the accelerating rate of methane production matches what would be expected in the “high emissions” scenario used by scientists to project what might happen if humanity takes no action to combat climate change… About a third of human-caused emissions comes from animal agriculture, particularly beef and dairy… Bacteria in the stomachs of Earth’s approximately 1.5 billion cows generate vast amounts of methane as they help the animals digest. More of the gas gets released by microbes as they break down the billions of tons of waste that livestock produce each year. Despite efforts to address these emissions by changing cows’ diets and capturing manure fumes for fuel… methane from livestock increased 16 percent from 2000 to 2020… For the first time, the scientists also analyzed how human activities have affected the methane that comes from ecosystems, revealing that roughly a third of emissions that were once considered natural can actually be traced back to people. Runoff from farms and communities provides more nutrients for microbes in lakes and wetlands, accelerating their metabolisms and allowing them to produce more methane…

Sustainability considerations are not influencing meat consumption https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107667

The consumption of animal-source foods, and particularly red meat from ruminants, is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, freshwater use, and loss of biodiversity. Reducing red meat consumption has been identified as a key strategy to mitigate climate change... Food production is associated with approximately 30% of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe), 70% of freshwater use, and is the largest contributor to biodiversity losses. Animal-source foods, particularly ruminants such as beef and lamb, have the largest impact on GHGe, as compared to plant-based food sources. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report identified reducing meat consumption, particularly meat derived from ruminants, as a key response option for climate change mitigation, given its high environmental footprint. In addition to growing environmental concerns related to meat production, there are public health concerns related to high levels of red and processed meat consumption. Excessive red meat consumption has been linked to an increased risk of diet-related diseases such as cardiovascular disease, stroke, and some cancers. Moreover, the added salt and preservatives often used in processed meat are associated with a higher risk of heart disease and cancer, especially colon cancer...

Latin America report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2024.100746

… commodity-driven deforestation and expansion of agricultural land remain major contributors to tree cover loss in the region, accounting for around 80% of the total loss. Additionally, animal-based food production in Latin America contributes 85% to agricultural CO2 equivalent emissions... From a health perspective, in 2020, approximately 870,000 deaths were associated with imbalanced diets, of which 155,000 (18%) were linked to high intake of red and processed meat and dairy products... The escalating tree cover loss in Latin America underscores the urgent need for comprehensive conservation strategies, sustainable agricultural practices, and robust urban planning. Agriculture practices have not only severe impacts on the planet due to significant GHG emissions (e.g., ruminants and manure) and loss of carbon sink (i.e., tree cover loss) but also on human health. The overconsumption of animal-derived products is a key driver of increased livestock rearing, and the associated tree cover loss, while also being responsible for a substantial burden of disease from unhealthy diets in Latin America. This underlines the potential for delivering synergistic health and climate interventions, which promote healthier diets, reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases, and reduce deforestation. As the planet grapples with climate change, preserving forests is not only essential for the environment but also pivotal for human health and survival... Nutritious plant-based diets that are rich in whole grain cereals, legumes, vegetables, and fruits are associated with lower GHG emissions, less land use change due to livestock feeding, a reduced risk of non-communicable diseases, and an increase in life expectancy. On the other hand, excessive consumption of animal-based and processed meat and refined sugars is linked to higher GHG emissions and intensive agricultural practices, as well as higher rates of diseases and premature mortality in human populations. In this sense, a shift from diets intense in animal-based and processed foods to nutritious plant-based diets, would have a double impact: on the planet and human health...

Plant-based meat alternatives are eco-friendlier and mostly healthier https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/aug/28/plant-based-meat-alternatives-environment-nutrition

Plant-based alternatives to meat are better for the planet and mostly healthier than products such as burgers and sausages made from animals… Environmentally the production of meat substitutes involves far fewer greenhouse gas emissions and much less water than that of meat dishes, according to the Food Foundation. Fake meat products also perform well nutritionally in comparison with the real thing. They contain fewer calories, less saturated fat and more fibre… Beans and grains emerged as the healthiest, most eco-friendly and also cheapest of the four types of products analysed. They are “a natural source of protein, deliver the best bang for buck on health and environment, with lower amounts of saturated fat, calories and salt and the highest amount of fibre of all products… They are also the most affordable category.” Underlying report: https://foodfoundation.org.uk/publication/rethinking-plant-based-meat-alternatives

Are Animals Needed for Food Supply, Efficient Resource Use, and Sustainable Cropping Systems? https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-024-00147-9

It has been argued that livestock farming is necessary to feed a growing population, that it enables efficient use of land and biomass that would otherwise be lost from the food system, that it produces manure that is necessary for crop cultivation, and helps improve the sustainability of cropping systems by inclusion of perennial forage crops in otherwise low-diversity crop rotations. In this paper, we analyze these arguments�� based on scientific data, we show that the arguments are either invalid or that their validity is limited to certain circumstances. Without taking into consideration any other potential arguments for livestock farming, or arguments against it, we conclude that the arguments analyzed here cannot in isolation provide justification for more than a small proportion of today’s livestock farming. Livestock production is a major driver of environmental impacts and is also associated with a number of other sustainability challenges related to working conditions, animal welfare, development of antibiotic resistance, and emergence of zoonoses. Many researchers and influential organizations have called for reductions in livestock production as a crucial strategy to reach environmental targets. At the same time, there are many valuable services provided by livestock farming. For instance, livestock farming creates jobs and livelihoods, it provides financial security for some vulnerable populations, it offers farmers a meaningful life, it supports traditions and cultures, it enhances biodiversity in some places, and so on. Livestock systems however show a wide variety, and the services they bring are highly context specific. Livestock farming varies from intensive land-less poultry production in high-income settings in which the main service is the provisioning of cheap meat to affluent populations, to the keeping of one or a few goats per family in low-income settings providing crucial nutrition, income, financial security and manure for cropping… In this paper, we have scrutinized three major arguments (with two sub-arguments each) in favor of livestock farming: (1) the nutrition argument; (2) the resource use argument; and (3) the crop production argument. Our analysis shows that all these arguments have limited acceptability and relevance for livestock farming in general, and that their respective scope of applicability is narrow... How much of today’s livestock farming that meets these criteria is unclear... between 9 and 23 g of animal protein per capita and day could be supplied from such resources, which is considerably less than current consumption levels in high-income settings. [Also see the recent study finding that only 800 g of meat per year could be produced sustainably.] Our aim in this paper has been to identify and scrutinize the conditions under which the considered arguments can justify future livestock farming. There are certainly other (i.e., non-food related) arguments in favor of livestock farming, and other arguments against livestock farming, that should be taken into account. In this paper, we put these to one side for the sake of stringency, and simply note that they must be considered before drawing final conclusions regarding the overall justifiability of livestock farming, its scale and type. It is also worth repeating that we assumed that there are no ethically principled restrictions to the use of animals in food production. If such restrictions apply, they will further limit the moral justifiability of future livestock farming.

Pulse crops: nutrient density, affordability & environmental impact https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2024.1438369

Sustainable foods need to be nutrient-rich, affordable, environmentally friendly, and socially acceptable. Pulses, which include beans, lentils, chickpeas, and dried peas are a food group that can fit all those criteria… The present sustainability analyses were based on… nutrient composition and food prices data. Environmental impact data came from life cycle assessments (LCA)… Pulses were among the lowest-cost protein sources (per 100 g and per 100 kcal) and had the lowest greenhouse gas emissions GHG emissions and energy demand. Pulses were among the most sustainable foods when monetary and energy costs were expressed per 50 g of protein. Pulses scored well on the Nutrient Rich Food nutrient profiling system and on the related Affordable Nutrition Index that assessed nutrient density per penny. Pulses are a source of low-cost plant-based protein and [of] a variety of priority vitamins and minerals, have low carbon footprint and energy demand, and are a valued culinary ingredient across diverse regions and cultures. As dietary guidance turns to plant-based diets, pulses need to be integrated into the global sustainability framework…

Methane emissions push the Amazon towards environmental catastrophe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/17/methane-climate-crisis-amazon-peat-permafrost-vegan-heat-pumps

Controlling methane provides our best, and perhaps only, lever for shaving peak global temperatures over the next few decades. This is because it’s cleansed from the air naturally only a decade or so after release. Therefore if we could eliminate all methane emissions from human activities, methane’s concentration would quickly return to pre-industrial levels. Essentially, humans have released in excess of 3bn tonnes of methane into the atmosphere in the past 20 years. Quashing those emissions within a decade or two would save us 0.5C of warming. No other greenhouse gas gives us this much power to slow the climate crisis… Our homes are a great place to begin cutting methane emissions – replacing fossil gas with cleaner electric appliances and reducing our personal beef and dairy consumption… Beyond what fuel you cook with, changing what you eat is another way to reduce methane emissions. A typical cow burps a bathtub’s worth of methane a day, around 100kg a year. More than a billion cows worldwide and their manure therefore emits more methane than the global oil and gas industry. Eating less beef and dairy is another smart (and healthy) way for people to cut their methane footprint.

Global meat consumption driver analysis https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-024-01455-y

... increasing meat consumption has become a major global sustainability issue, with consequences on human health, the environment and global natural resources... Meat consumption has reached a level such that it negatively affects human health in large parts of medium- and high-income countries... excessive animal protein and fat intake can lead to high risk of obesity, cardiovascular diseases, stroke, and several types of cancer. From the environmental standpoint... meat consumption is the largest contributor (31%) to the water footprint of human diet. Over half of the protein biomass of global crop harvests is used to feed livestock. Approximately one quarter of the world's land area is used for grazing. The increase in animal husbandry-related land-use has become one of the main cause for human-generated environmental degradation, including deforestation, land degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions. The dietary transition toward more plant-based diets is necessary...

Effects of Changing Dietary Patterns in the EU http://doi.org/10.53846/goediss-10636

Reducing the consumption of animal-based foods and shifting to a more plant-based diet is seen by many scientists as a contribution to combating climate change and improving the environment and public health… life cycle assessments consistently show higher greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods, especially beef, compared to plant-based foods… vegetarian and vegan diets have the potential to reduce diet-related emissions by 60% to 70% and to contribute to a reduction in premature mortality and non-communicable diseases… there is growing evidence of the positive environmental, climate and health effects of a transition to more plant-based diets… In the EU27, the full adoption of the EAT-Lancet diet reduces agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by 29%. Particularly large reductions are possible in methane emissions… Overall… more plant-based diets have the potential to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in the EU and can contribute to a more sustainable agri-food system… although water, land use, biodiversity and many other environmental dimensions may also be affected…

The potential of meat alternatives for a more sustainable food system https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ze5yt

The steady rise in global meat consumption poses severe sustainability challenges. Livestock and feed crops occupy 77% of the world's agricultural land but provide only 18% of the calories and 37% of the total protein intake of human diets. Global greenhouse gas emissions from food production amount to 35% of total emissions, of which 57% is due to the production of animal-based food. In 2018, negative externalities associated with global food production systems were estimated at US$14.0 trillion. A dietary shift away from animal-sourced foods alone holds the potential to significantly reduce this figure, potentially saving up to US$7.3 trillion due to health and environmental benefits. … an extensive assessment demands a comparative analysis across the various alternative protein options themselves as backing suboptimal solutions represents an opportunity cost in terms of the potential for meat substitution. Some alternatives may have inherent drawbacks relative to others, such as lower consumer appeal or scalability constraints, despite being environmentally preferable to meat. Insofar as these alternatives might be competing for the same meat consumption segment or funding, these competitive dynamics should be part of the discussion… Plant-based meats emerge as the most promising option towards a more sustainable food system. Single-cell proteins also show promise, albeit with uncertainties surrounding scalability and acceptability. Cultivated meat could positively contribute if scaled up and capturing consumers reluctant towards plant-based meats or single-cell proteins. Conversely, insect protein appears least promising due to major acceptance and scalability hurdles, limited environmental benefits, and significant ethical concerns surrounding insect farming practices…

State aid scheme to promote a more sustainable and environmentally friendly production https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_24_4261

The European Commission has approved, under EU State aid rules, a €700 million Dutch scheme to compensate farmers for voluntarily closing livestock farming sites... to improve the quality of the environment and promote a more sustainable and environmentally friendly production... The scheme will apply to priority areas... which include peatlands, sandy soils, stream valleys, as well as areas in and next to Natura 2000-areas…

Climate change impacts from the global food system through diet shifts https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02084-1

How much and what we eat and where it is produced can create huge differences in GHG emissions… consumer groups with higher expenditures generally cause more dietary emissions due to higher red meat and dairy intake. Such inequality is more pronounced in low-income countries. The present global annual dietary emissions would fall by 17% with the worldwide adoption of the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet, primarily attributed to shifts from red meat to legumes and nuts as principal protein sources. More than half (56.9%) of the global population, which is presently overconsuming, would save 32.4% of global emissions through diet shifts, offsetting the 15.4% increase in global emissions from presently underconsuming populations moving towards healthier diets… Food choices impact both our health and the environment. The food system is responsible for about one-third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions and climate goals become unattainable without efforts to reduce food-related emissions. However, not everyone contributes the same way to food-related emissions because of disparities in lifestyle, food preferences and affordability within and across countries. High levels of food consumption (especially animal-based diets), one of the leading causes of obesity and non-communicable diseases, lead to substantial emission. Simultaneously, >800 million people still suffer from hunger and almost 3.1 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet. Ending hunger and malnutrition while feeding the growing population by extending food production will further exacerbate climate change. Given the notable increase in emissions driven by food consumption despite efficiency gains, changing consumer lifestyles and choices are needed to mitigate climate change. Research shows that widespread shifts towards healthier diets, aligned with the sustainable development goals (SDGs)… offer solutions to this complex problem…

Biodiversity limits to grazing ruminant milk and meat production https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01398-4

The production and consumption of animal-source foods must be transformed to mitigate negative environmental outcomes, including greenhouse gas emissions and land-use change… Previous studies have not yet fully explored sustainability limits to the use of grazing lands for food production in the context of biodiversity. Here we explore ‘biodiversity limits’ to grassland ruminant production by estimating the meat and milk production from domestic ruminants limited to grazing areas and stocking densities where livestock can contribute to the preservation or restoration of biodiversity. With biodiversity-friendly grazing intensities… this… corresponds to... only 2.2 kg of milk and 0.8 kg of meat per capita per year, globally…

Powerful environmental groups help greenwash Big Meat’s climate impact https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/362224/environment-groups-meat-industry-lies-global-warming-climate-change-wwf

Globally, 80 billion land animals and 1 trillion to 2 trillion aquatic animals are slaughtered for food each year, producing greenhouse gas emissions in five main ways: deforestation to graze cattle and grow corn and soy to feed farmed animals; pollution from the fertilizer used to grow those corn and soy crops; manure, which is high in nitrous oxide, a significant greenhouse gas; diesel from fishing vessels and nitrous oxide-rich waste from fish farms; and the largest single source, the world’s 1.5 billion cows who burp out methane, another potent greenhouse gas. Added up, meat and dairy production account for an estimated 14.5 percent to 19.6 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to researchers at the University of Illinois and the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization. That squarely makes it a leading driver of global warming, on par with road transport. While it composes a smaller share of emissions in the US, at around 7 percent according to experts’ analysis of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, that’s less a function of how much meat Americans eat — which is a lot — than how much more we pollute through our energy and transportation sectors. But even that estimate of 7 percent is probably too low, primarily because numerous sources of emissions from farming and food are attributed by the EPA to other sectors, including but not limited to on-farm electricity and combustion, food waste, converting land to agriculture, and the entire seafood industry. And while the US is expected to continue to make progress in reducing its emissions from fossil fuels as the country switches to clean energy and electric vehicles, less progress has been seen in the agricultural sector. In fact, in 2015 the US Department of Agriculture predicted that America’s agricultural greenhouse gas footprint would be roughly the same in 2050 as it is today. (In 2020, the USDA established a goal of halving US agricultural emissions by 2050, but is in no way on a path to meet it.) There is also something unique about animal agriculture that is often underappreciated in the climate debate: It requires a vast amount of land — far more than any other industry and far more than plant-based foods. If we ate fewer animal products, some of that land could be restored as grasslands and forests, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in trees and soil, effectively canceling out some of the emissions that humans generate while providing habitat for wildlife. It’s what’s called the “carbon opportunity cost” of meat. In rich countries, which eat a lot of meat, that cost is massive. According to a 2020 study led by Matthew Hayek, a New York University environmental studies professor, a shift to plant-based eating in rich countries would free up enough land to sequester an amount of carbon dioxide approximately equal to the past nine years of their fossil fuel emissions. According to several studies, including an influential 2020 paper in the journal Science, we don’t have much of a choice but to move to a more plant-based food system in order to meet global climate targets. Even if we were to end global fossil fuel use immediately, food consumption trends over the next century — namely rapid growth in meat and dairy consumption — would “make it impossible” to meet the Paris Climate Agreement, as the Science paper puts it. “Plant-rich diets,” it found, hold the most promise for making the global food system compliant with the Paris agreement. That’s the climate impact of the meat we eat. But animal agriculture is also arguably America’s largest source of water pollution and a leading source of air pollution, linked to more premature deaths than coal power plants. It is the leading cause of global deforestation — a leading cause, in fact, of just about everything the environmental movement fights against...

How Factory Farming Ends https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/364288/how-factory-farming-ends-animal-rights-vegans-climate-ethics

In 2024, it’s hardly a secret that the billions of animals raised for food are treated abysmally. They are, to name just a few standard industry practices, caged, mutilated without pain relief, and intensively bred to the point that they live in chronic pain and even struggle to stand up, before being slaughtered, often painfully. The sheer scale of this system defies comprehension. Every year, humans kill 80 billion land animals — 10 times more than there are people on Earth — and an even larger, poorly tracked number of fish. If the cost to animals wasn’t bad enough, industrial animal agriculture also spells peril for us: It fuels antibiotic resistance and zoonotic disease threats that keep scientists up at night. It’s a massive environmental liability, emitting what researchers estimate is between 14 percent and 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and devouring more than one-third of the planet’s habitable land...

Slaughter-free meat hits the grocery shelf https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02373-2

As cultivated meat begins to enter grocery stores, governments should promote the field’s development in line with broad public goals of sustainability and accessibility… the sector is poised for commercialization if the technology can be scaled. Enthusiasm for producing meat from animal cells instead of animals is driven by diverse concerns about the harms of meat-eating to the environment, animals and human health... Much depends on continued R&D progress — and on consumers’ dietary choices — but governments should act to shape its future according to public interests in sustainable agriculture and food security. Worldwide meat consumption in 2022 totaled ~82 billion chickens, ducks, pigs, sheep, goats, turkeys and cows. The toll of meat-eating at this scale is profound. For the environment, it means massive greenhouse gas emissions, land degradation, water use, deforestation, biodiversity loss, soil erosion, and waterway and air pollution; for animals, the suffering of industrial farms and slaughterhouses; for human health, unsafe working conditions, pollution, meat-safety problems, the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria from misuse of antibiotics, and exposure to zoonotic diseases with pandemic potential. The inconvenient conclusion, in study after study, is that intensive animal agriculture is unsustainable in a world facing a population of 10 billion and a ~73% increase in meat demand by 2050. For starters, there is not enough land, as livestock already occupies ~36% of earth’s habitable land. Animal-based food contributes ~57% of the greenhouse gas emissions from the global food system, which amounts to ~20% of total anthropogenic emissions — twice that of plant-based food. Meat therefore presents an enormous opportunity for climate. One analysis found that a transition to plant-based diets could reduce emissions ~56% by 2050. Another showed that phasing out livestock, combined with ecosystem restoration on land formerly used for grazing and feed crops, would provide half the emissions reductions needed to stay below a 2 ˚C temperature rise. The strategy of cultivated meat stems from the recognition that peoples’ ancient habit of eating animals is not going away anytime soon. Unlike plant-based meat substitutes, fashioned from soy, pea and other plant proteins, cultivated meat is grown from animal cells in sterile bioreactors. The aim is “real meat”, with the same muscle and fat, flavors and textures as chicken, beef or pork, and with the same — or even improved — nutritional qualities… Scaling up supply in the future depends on finding solutions to scientific and engineering challenges. R&D work is focused on improving cost, yield and taste and meeting regulatory requirements. All parts of the process are being explored… In the short term, though, many startups are proceeding stepwise to less ambitious products, such as blended, low-meat foods. Since large manufacturing plants do not exist, environmental benefits can only be estimated. Cultivated meat involves more processing than plant-based food, but with efficient production systems and renewable energy, emissions may be ~40-fold lower compared with those of beef. A conservative analysis that assumed renewable energy and sustainable feedstocks found a carbon footprint ~12-fold lower for beef, ~2-fold lower for pork, and about the same for chicken, with corresponding land-use reductions of about 10-fold, 3-fold and 2-fold...

German environmental food impacts due to a planetary health diet https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02352-4

Also in Germany food consumption is responsible for high environmental impacts… the aim of this paper is to analyse the environmental impacts of German food consumption with respect to impacts on climate change, biodiversity and water, and to build three scenarios for a German planetary health diet in order to identify reduction potentials. The analysis has been conducted using life cycle assessment (LCA)… each person in Germany consumes on average about 2650 kcal per person and day… about 25% more than recommended in the German guidelines. This finding correlates with the fact that over 50% of German inhabitants are overweight and almost a fifth (18.5%) is obese… the environmental footprint of the German diet could also be reduced by about another fifth if the recommendations of the EAT-Lancet Commission [of largely plant-based diets] were combined with the daily recommended energy intakes of the German for nutrition… The results show that greenhouse gas emissions, land use and impacts on terrestrial biodiversity are mainly depending on the consumption of animal products. To reduce these impacts, it is necessary to reduce the consumption of meat and other animal products, mainly beef and processed products like sausages and cheese. The water scarcity footprint assessment on the other hand shows that most of the impact is caused by only a few plant-based products… This does not mean that animal products are generally better than plant-based products regarding the water scarcity footprint. It depends on the product and its origin… it is important to evaluate which products are suited for the substitution of animal-based products… The biodiversity assessment shows that, like for water scarcity, large optimisation potentials exist regarding products and origins due to the ecoregion factor. For example, the ecoregion factor for soy production in Italy is 0.047, while the factor in Brazil is almost 8 times as high… Moreover, the results display that most impacts on biodiversity and water scarcity caused by the German diet are caused outside of Germany… the environmental impacts of the current diet in Germany take place largely at the expense of other countries. Summing up, it could be clearly shown that with a decreasing share of animal products in the diet, the environmental impacts considered decrease… A look at the foods that cause the high water use and the resulting water scarcity footprint shows that this could also be easily addressed if the consumption of citrus fruits and almonds were reduced and other fruits and nuts from regions less threatened by water scarcity were used instead…

Sustainable food choices require environmental footprints https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.07.002

The current food system is a major driver of global environmental change... In response to increasing consumer demand for product-specific health and sustainability labelling on packaged food products, it is necessary to develop robust environmental footprinting approaches to estimate the environmental impacts of foods and beverages available through retail outlets. This study quantifies the environmental impacts of 63,926 packaged food products in Australian supermarkets across five indicators including greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, acidification, and eutrophication potential. We integrated cradle-to-retail environmental estimates from life cycle assessment databases... to measure product-specific impacts. Meat products consistently showed the highest impacts across all environmental indicators, while fruits, vegetables, plant-based meat alternatives, and non-alcoholic beverages had the lowest impacts...

Is There Such a Thing As 'Better' Meat? https://www.wri.org/insights/better-meat-sourcing-climate-environmental-impacts

Meat and dairy are major contributors to climate change. Animal agriculture is responsible for more than three-quarters of agricultural land use, 11%-20% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and more than 30% of global methane emissions. Meat production is also a leading driver of recent tropical deforestation. The good news is that companies and consumers are increasingly looking for more sustainable animal products. But reducing emissions is just one piece of the puzzle. So are addressing water use, water pollution and biodiversity loss driven by animal agriculture; improving animal welfare; supporting local farmers and more. The problem is that there’s no single solution to tackle all these priorities at once. Indeed... options such as organic and grass-fed meat — which can improve animals’ lives and reduce antibiotic usage, among other benefits — often come with higher GHG emissions and environmental impacts than conventional production... Reducing overall meat and dairy consumption is an essential step toward slashing food-related emissions and achieving global climate goals... “Better” meat can mean different things to different people. For some, it means better performance against environmental, social, ethical or economic attributes. This could include lowering methane emissions, avoiding sourcing from deforestation hotspots, increasing farmers’ incomes or improving animals’ lives. It could mean sourcing meat that consumers think tastes better. It could also mean improving soil health, on-farm biodiversity or productivity... However, these attributes don't always align, which can result in trade-offs between different priorities... When it comes to alternative production systems such as organic, grass-fed and free-range, the trade-offs are more nuanced... they can improve animal welfare by providing more space for cows to graze on pastures or for chickens to roam more freely. Alternative systems also tend to use antibiotics more responsibly. This can help slow the growing crisis of antimicrobial resistance that makes infections in both humans and animals harder to treat. But... these systems often come with higher environmental impacts per gram of protein compared to conventional production methods. WRI analyzed research... nearly 300 environmental data points from 45 studies... [and] found that alternative systems led to increased environmental impacts in 75% of the data points. This is largely due to the way the animals are raised. For example, in grass-finished (grass-fed) beef systems, cattle grow at a slower pace and emit more methane during their lives than in conventional grain-fed systems... Alternative systems also tend to require more land per gram of protein, whether for pasture, for increased space in confined systems or for feed production. This can lead to trade-offs between environmental impacts. Organic feed crop production, for example, may have lower on-farm GHG emissions than conventional production due to the lack of chemical fertilizer use. But it often has lower crop yields per hectare, too, requiring more land for the same amount of feed. This has important climate implications: Ongoing agricultural land expansion conflicts with urgent goals to end deforestation and restore ecosystems, which will be necessary to reach global climate goals and hold the world to 1.5 or 2 degrees C of warming. To account for the climate impacts of these land use trade-offs, we estimated the “carbon opportunity costs” of land use under the different meat and dairy production methods. Carbon opportunity costs... translate agricultural land-use requirements into carbon dioxide equivalents. When looking at “total carbon costs,” which include on-farm emissions as well as carbon opportunity costs, alternative meat and dairy production systems like grass-fed, organic and free-range had higher overall climate impacts per gram of protein than conventional systems in more than 90% of cases. This is because the climate impacts of the higher land use requirements ultimately outweighed these systems’ lower on-farm emissions... One powerful step for any food provider wishing to serve “better” meat is to go beyond just sourcing less meat to sourcing even less meat...

Analyzing the climate and ecosystem impacts of the Brazilian diet shift https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172568

Diet shift is an opportunity to mitigate the impacts of food systems, which are responsible for about a third of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally and exert various environmental pressures on ecosystems... a life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed to evaluate the environmental impacts of a conventional diet in Brazil and seven alternatives, namely adjusted-EAT-Lancet, pescatarian, vegetarian, entomophagic (insect-based food), mycoprotein (microbial-based food), and synthetic (cell-based food) diets. Results indicate a substantial mitigation potential for GHG emissions (39 % to 86 %) and land use (38 % to 82 %) through a diet shift from a conventional diet to any of the seven alternative diets... This study highlights the considerable potential of dietary changes to mitigate global environmental impacts associated with food systems...

A Life Cycle Assessment of Plant-Based Meats in Tackling Climate Change https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202404.1262.v1

As the world attempts to decarbonise the food industry and limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, plant-based meat analogues have emerged as a sustainable alternative to traditional meat. This study implemented a life cycle assessment (LCA) to rigorously compare the environmental impacts of a beef burger, produced with British beef, against a meat analogue equivalent with a publicly available recipe... the beef burger patty had more than double the total environmental impact than the meat analogue equivalent, as well as possessing a global warming impact that was 62% higher...

Assessing the sustainability of cultured meat in optimized Danish diets https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.04.002

Reducing animal-sourced foods in diets saves a significant share of environmental impacts... large reductions in red meats in particular... In this paper, the inclusion of cultured meat in optimized Danish diets is explored through minimizing climate impact... The greatest Global Warming Potential reductions can be seen in the cultured meat diet (8.0 Mt CO2 eq./yr) and vegan diets (9.8 Mt CO2 eq./yr)... These reductions could represent potential Danish national emissions decrease of 21 % and 25 %, respectively, in 2022 impacts...

Plant-Based Beef Significantly More Sustainable Than Traditional Beef

https://vegconomist.com/sustainability-environment/study-plant-based-beef-significantly-sustainable-beef/

A research team... conducted a comparative study analyzing papers from various countries on the sustainability and nutrition of beef versus plant-based beef... Plant-based beef was found to significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions, with reductions ranging from 86% to 97% in various studies. Plant-based beef also requires less land... Roughly 75 % of global agricultural land is for animal production while animal-based foods provide only 18 % human calories and 25 % protein in global good supply... The new research also shows that plant-based beef, particularly burgers, generally have lower energy and saturated fat content but lower levels of protein compared to beef... different processing methods and ingredients can impact emissions from plant-based meat, but overall, it is significantly more sustainable... One of the technological responses to concerns about the healthiness and sustainability of red meat consumption as well as growing global food insecurity has been the development of plant-based meats... plant-based beef has lower greenhouse gas emissions than animal-based beef and that plant-based burgers have lower total fat and saturated fat than animal-based burgers.

“Climate-friendly” beef... Don’t fall for it https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/8/23863100/tyson-climate-friendly-beef-burger-usda

Tyson Foods and the federal government refuse to show their math for a new sustainability label. One species accounts for around 10 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions: the cow. Every few months, like clockwork, environmental scientists publish a new report on how we can’t limit planetary warming if people in rich countries don’t eat fewer cows and other animals. But meat giant Tyson Foods, in conjunction with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has a different solution: “climate-friendly” beef. Tyson claims that its “Climate-Smart Beef” program, launched last year and supported with taxpayer dollars, has managed to cut 10 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from a tiny fraction of its cattle herd. Those cattle are then slaughtered and sold under the company’s Brazen Beef brand with a USDA-approved “climate-friendly” label, which is now for sale in limited quantities... It sounds nice — Americans could continue to eat nearly 60 pounds of beef annually while the world burns. But it’s just the latest salvo in the meat industry’s escalating war against climate science, and its campaign to greenwash its way out of the fight for a livable planet... Matthew Hayek, an assistant professor of environmental studies... told me the methods Tyson is talking about are admirable, but that doesn’t mean the 10 percent reduction claim is justified. Some practices may be good for land stewardship but don’t reduce emissions. For those that can reduce emissions, savings will be marginal. “These are razor-thin distinctions in a country that already produces meat incredibly efficiently, and our tools are not cut out [to measure] these thin margins... You can’t call that [climate-friendly], in any good conscience.” And because emissions from US cattle operations vary widely, “There’s simply no reliable way to estimate a change in greenhouse gas emissions as small as 10 percent on any one farm — let alone a complex network of them”... Just as important as showing its math is knowing where the starting line for emissions reduction begins. Tyson says it has reduced the carbon footprint of some of its beef by 10 percent, but 10 percent relative to what? What’s the benchmark? Nobody knows. A 2019 study by the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association found that the average American steer emits 21.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions per kilogram of carcass weight. But in 2021, the USDA approved a low-carbon beef program (unrelated to Tyson) that uses a benchmark nearly 25 percent higher than the 2019 study... In September, when asked what benchmark the USDA uses to approve a 10 percent emissions reduction claim, the agency again said I would need to file a FOIA request. In the document it sent to Environmental Working Group, the portion on benchmarks was redacted. But even if we give Tyson and the USDA the benefit of the doubt, there’s a stubborn truth about beef: It’s so high in emissions that it can never really be “climate-friendly”... relative to every other food product, beef remains the coal of the food sector. “Beef is always going to be and always will be the worst [food] choice for the climate”... What Tyson’s done here is equivalent to making a Hummer 10 percent more fuel-efficient and calling it climate-friendly — it’s greenwashing... Meat and dairy production account for 15 to 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and leading environmental scientists say we must drastically reduce livestock emissions and eat more plant-based meals. That message, however, hasn’t broken through to the general public, nor to policymakers... However, meat companies could face legal consequences over misleading environmental claims. Earlier this year, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, the world’s largest meat company, over its claim that it will achieve net zero emissions by 2040. James argued that such a goal was unsubstantiated and unachievable... The USDA and government agencies around the world know what must be done to slash food emissions. Now they just need to follow the science, resist industry greenwashing, and cut back on the burgers.

The case for paying ranchers to raise trees instead of cattle https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/02/cattle-trees-climate-change-solution

Reducing cattle populations and restoring native ecosystems is our best chance to tackle global heating. Here’s one way to do it. There is a simple, cost-effective and scientifically sound way to turn back the clock on global warming and reverse the catastrophic collapse of biodiversity: pay ranchers to raise trees instead of cattle. By mass, the world’s 1.7 billion cows are the dominant animal species on Earth, far outweighing the human population, and outweighing all the wild terrestrial mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians left on Earth by more than 15-fold. More than a third of Earth’s land is used to feed livestock. Winding down the cattle population and restoring the native ecosystems that once thrived on the vast land area now dominated by cows is our best chance to rapidly reduce global heating and begin to reverse the collapse of global biodiversity and wildlife. Although many people are aware that reducing consumption of animal products would help combat the climate crisis, the size of the effect is deeply underappreciated. Our peer-reviewed research estimated the climate impact of reduced emissions from livestock and recovery of plant biomass on the land they occupy. It showed that a global phaseout of animal agriculture over 15 years would unlock “negative emissions” sufficient to bring about an urgently needed 30-year window of “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions – even if all other emissions continued on their current trajectory... Restoring native ecosystems on cattle-grazing land would enable essential habitats for threatened plant and animal species to recover and expand. So what is stopping us from turning back the clock on the climate crisis and environmental degradation? We do not need to raise cattle. Beef and milk account for less than 13% of the world’s protein supply. Current global production of just one of the world’s diverse plant crops – soybeans – yields more than twice as much high-quality protein as the entire global meat supply. Beef consumption is already declining; since its peak in the mid-70s, per capita beef consumption has dropped by more than 20% globally and more than 35% in the US. Evidence suggests that this trend will continue – the sharpest declines in the past two decades are among the youngest groups. Raising cattle is far from lucrative, even in wealthy economies where demand for beef is high. The agriculture department confirmed this month that US beef farmers and ranchers are in dire economic straits. For all their hard, dangerous work, 70% lose money and, excluding government support, their average net income per acre was less than 50 cents. In the European Union, member governments provide more than 100% of beef farmers’ income, even covering losses. And things will only worsen for those farmers, what with rising temperatures, changing weather patterns and water shortages. But farmers and ranchers don’t need to be victims of a changing world; they can instead be the heroes who save us from the two greatest threats facing our planet and our species. All it would take would be to recognize that restoration and stewardship of natural ecosystems that fight the climate crisis and support wildlife is an agricultural occupation essential to our welfare and security, and to adapt agricultural policies toward supporting farmers who choose to ranch carbon instead of cattle... A... global annual investment of just 1% of the world’s GDP – around $1tn – to pay farmers who choose to transition from cattle husbandry to restoration and management of native forests and grasslands would significantly raise the income of cattle farmers and stimulate rural communities, while rapidly reducing global warming and reversing the global collapse of biodiversity. And that would be a bargain. We could begin with a voluntary pilot program to see what this strategy can deliver for farmers and the environment. Most developed countries have well-established systems for both governmental support of farmers and monitoring of agricultural activity, providing a strong starting point for implementation and validation. Fierce opposition from powerful interests is inevitable; realizing this opportunity will require extraordinary political courage and diplomacy. Our responsibility to future generations demands that we find it.

Global meat demand projection https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139460

Meat demand is a crucial part of limiting the rise in global temperature below 1.5 °C or, at least, 2 °C and has an important role in maintaining public health. We... analyze and project meat demand both in history (1961–2019) and future scenarios (2020–2100). Our results revealed the disproportionate climate impacts of meat consumption in the West. The country group, Western Countries, was the biggest consumer in history, consuming 38% of global meat cumulatively but accounting for only 14% of the world population from 1961 to 2019. Our projections show that global total meat demand will decline in this century under most future scenarios. The East Asia & Pacific region is expected to contribute 56%–125% of global meat demand decline... On the contrary, meat demand in Western Countries may be more likely to increase by 15%–71% between 2020 and 2100. However, both the general public and governments in Western Countries seem reluctant to promote lifestyle changing to mitigate climate change. Thus, it is essential to take measures to limit the negative environmental impacts of increasing meat demand. Especially western high-income countries need to take proportional responsibility for international cooperation to reduce meat consumption for climate change mitigation...

Dietary quality and dietary greenhouse gas emissions in the USA https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01581-y

The Planetary Health Diet Index (PHDI) measures adherence to the dietary pattern presented by the EAT-Lancet Commission, which aligns health and sustainability targets. There is a need to understand how Planetary Health Diet Index scores correlate with dietary greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) and how this differs from the carbon footprints of scores on established dietary recommendations. The objectives of this study were to compare how the PHDI, Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015) and Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) relate to (a) dietary GHGE and (b) to examine the influence of Planetary Health Diet Index food components on dietary GHGE. We used life cycle assessment data… We found that higher dietary quality on all three indices was correlated with lower dietary GHGE… When examining Planetary Health Diet Index component scores, we found that diet-related GHGE were driven largely by red and processed meat intake… … one component—red and processed meat—had a much larger impact on diet-related GHGE than any other Planetary Health Diet Index component. Red and processed meat have high production-associated GHGE, and diets high in this component are consistently found to have higher diet-related GHGE… While red meat is a source of nutrients such iron and vitamin B12, at high intakes such as those observed in the US, it is also correlated with cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes, and certain cancers. Moreover, in the US and other high-income contexts with high intake of animal-sourced foods, substituting red and processed meat in favor of more plant-based foods is estimated to have benefits for nutrient adequacy. For the US context, dietary guidelines that recommend limited intake red and processed meat could reduce diet-related GHGE and improve population health… Better dietary quality is associated with lower diet-related GHGE, with stronger associations for both Planetary Health Diet Index and DASH than for HEI-2015. Red and processed meat—which is a moderation component for both Planetary Health Diet Index and DASH—had the strongest influence on dietary GHGE. Future efforts to promote healthy, sustainable diets should reframe red and processed meat as a moderation component and could look to the established DASH guidelines as well as the new guidance provided by the Planetary Health Diet Index.

Cultivated chicken outperforms most efficient farm animal https://cultivated-x.com/meat/supermeats-cultivated-chicken-outperforms-most-efficient-farm-animal-carbon-footprint-study/

Chicken is considered the most efficient source of land-animal protein compared to beef and pork due to its lower feed conversion ratio and smaller environmental footprint. However, cultivated chicken presents an opportunity for even greater sustainability. A new life cycle analysis (LCA) from the Israeli startup SuperMeat, conducted by independent research consultancy CE Delft about the environmental impact of its 100% cultivated chicken vs. conventional chicken, found a 47% reduction in carbon emissions when the production used renewable energy. The LCA focused on large-scale production anticipated at the start of the next decade in a scenario where SuperMeat’s production integrates renewable energy... Meanwhile, chicken production was based on obtaining soy from deforestation-free supply chains and utilizing renewable electricity during production. The LCA also shows that even using the standard US electricity grid and a non-optimized supply chain, SuperMeat’s production process would still lead to a 27% reduction in carbon footprint compared to the most optimistic benchmarks for conventional chicken... In addition to the carbon footprint, the LCA shows a 90% reduction in land use compared to chicken production... Other measures include a 64% reduction in fine particulate matter (PM) formation against the projected emissions for conventional chicken... Particulate matter emissions... are a significant health risk due to their link to respiratory diseases. In traditional animal agriculture, using fertilizers and manure management are leading causes of elevated PM emissions. Additionally... cultivated chicken offers an 85% reduction in terrestrial acidification, which can degrade soil quality and disrupt ecosystems through manure application and fertilizer use, and a 68% reduction in feed requirements, demonstrating superior efficiency in transforming feed into meat...

The value and transitional purpose of plant-based meat https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100183

The increasing consumption of animal products globally, especially meat, constitutes a major concern. Foremost, the production of vast amounts of livestock has been linked to sustainability challenges such as deforestation, climate change and the loss of biodiversity. In addition, animal-protein and meat-dominated diets have been associated with zoonoses, cardiovascular diseases or cancer. Scholars and high-profile reports have therefore called for curbing meat consumption. This especially applies to the Global North, where meat consumption can be considered excessive...

Why New York is suing the world’s biggest meat company https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/3/8/24093774/big-meat-jbs-lawsuit-greenwashing-climate-new-york

Meat giant JBS said it’ll reach net zero emissions by 2040... Meat, especially beef, is by far the food sector’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, and no solution to these emissions exists that would offer significant reductions — except scaling down meat production. New York Attorney General Letitia James has deemed JBS’s misleading promises serious enough to take the company to court. A lawsuit filed by her office last week alleges that JBS’s claim about emissions reductions is both unsubstantiated and unachievable — and that it may not only mislead consumers into buying its highly polluting products... Functioning markets depend on giving consumers accurate information to be able to make free choices; corporate duplicity undermines the market’s capacity to provide goods they see as preferable... Livestock is responsible for 57 percent of food systems emissions, or about 14.5 percent of all global emissions. Much of this comes from cows, which produce methane when they digest food, but it also comes from factory farms where pigs and chickens are raised and from open air manure lagoons where waste from farmed animals is stored. Grazing cattle and growing feed crops for animals, like soy, are also major drivers of deforestation, most notably in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest. Among its many harms, deforestation removes a major carbon sink — meaning that not only does livestock production emit greenhouse gases, but the lands cleared for that production also can no longer capture and store planet-warming emissions anywhere near as efficiently as forests. Unsurprisingly, JBS’s emissions are gargantuan. In 2021 it reported more than 71 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions — making JBS, as New York’s lawsuit mentions, a larger emitter than the entire country of Ireland. Outside audits have suggested that its emissions are growing at an unchecked pace, increasing by 51 percent between 2016 and 2021. With global demand for meat rising, the meat industry is a major impediment to meeting climate targets. Without shifting diets in wealthy countries away from meat and dairy, it would be impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C, a target set by the Paris climate agreement. JBS’s business model conflicts with that reality, and with any possibility of bringing emissions in line with planetary limits. As New York’s lawsuit bluntly states: “scientists point to the need to reduce production of and demand for ruminant meat, including beef … The JBS Group plans to do the opposite.” The case alleges that JBS’s claims — which have appeared on its website and have been repeated in forums including a New York Times event last year — have no basis in fact, and that the company has neither the information nor the means to deliver on its promises because it lacks a complete picture of its own emissions…

US factory farming is even bigger than you realize https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24079424/factory-farming-facts-meat-usda-agriculture-census

In a few generations, factory farming — the set of economic, genetic, chemical, and pharmaceutical innovations that enabled humanity to raise tens of billions of animals for food every year — has transformed America [and other places]. It has polluted our water and air, ruining quality of life for people who live near animal confinements. It has altered entire landscapes, helping drive the conversion of... grasslands to soy and cornfields growing feed for billions of animals warehoused in industrial sheds. It contributes an outsized share of planet-warming emissions, heightens the risk of another zoonotic pandemic, and causes unfathomable, normalized suffering for the animals themselves... Such high concentrations of animals — and their waste — smell terrible and release hazardous air pollution linked to respiratory problems in the communities in which they’re located, a growing environmental justice issue. These facilities have also exacerbated US avian flu crises over the last decade: Having so many animals in one place means that when a case of bird flu hits one animal, it can quickly spread to hundreds of thousands of others (which also creates more opportunities for the disease to mutate into something potentially dangerous to humans)... As the number of animals farmed for food has exploded, so has their waste, adding up to almost 1 trillion pounds of it each year... The manure isn’t treated at sewage plants like human waste, but rather stored on the farm in piles or vast pits that are prone to leakage. Farmers also over-apply manure on crop fields to dispose of it and much of it washes away during storms into rivers and streams, causing widespread pollution... Even on its own terms, factory farming is still radically inefficient compared to a system with far fewer animals and more plant-based foods, which would require less land and water, emit less pollution and climate-warming gases, and allow the country to free up land for wild ecosystems that benefit the climate. If we’re willing to imagine a different world, one not dependent on slaughtering billions of animals for food, such a system is within reach...

Is oat milk unhealthy? That’s the wrong question https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24072187/is-oat-milk-bad-for-you-or-healthy-wrong-question

I typically choose to consume oat and soy milks because they taste good enough in coffee and cereal... it’s an easy way to support the welfare of cows and reduce my carbon footprint. That’s another reason why I find the “is it good vs. bad for you” debate over oat milk kind of icky: It distracts from these other important considerations... I like cows, and the treatment they receive at a typical dairy seems, at best, unkind. Farmers repeatedly impregnate cows and take away their calves right after they’re born. If those babies are male, they are usually turned into veal or raised for beef. If they’re female, the calves are typically dehorned and docked, and also eventually slaughtered (when their milk production wanes). I’m having trouble imagining that this is a happy existence. I’m also aware that, globally, a liter of dairy milk produces around three times as much carbon emissions as the same amount of plant-based milk. Cows release methane, a potent greenhouse gas, through their burps and manure... nondairy milks — and especially oat milk — not only release fewer emissions but also require less land and water. They tend to pollute less, too. (Growing feed for cows requires a lot of land, fertilizers, and pesticides.)...

Diet-related environmental impact by substituting meat and dairy https://doi.org/10.18174/649726

This research analyzed the environmental impact of food consumption in the Netherlands... was compared across days with and without meat and dairy consumption. On days when individuals consumed both meat and dairy, their diets had higher greenhouse gas emissions compared with days when they did not... Likewise, their daily diets with meat and dairy consumption showed higher levels of land use, terrestrial acidification, marine eutrophication, and freshwater eutrophication... on days with meat and dairy consumption, their diets showed less blue water use... If individuals were to replace meat and dairy by plant-based meat and dairy replacers (such as vegan meat analogues, legumes, soy milk, and nuts/seeds) in their daily diets, it could potentially lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of... 38.5%... land use of... 18.2%... terrestrial acidification of... 61.6%... as well as freshwater eutrophication of... 15.3%... and marine eutrophication of... 47.0%... Therefore, lowering meat and dairy consumption in the Netherlands has the potential to substantially reduce the environmental impact of food consumption, with the exception of blue water use. By making smart choices for plant-based foods with lower blue water use, this indicator could be improved...

Can beef farming be carbon neutral? A decade-long experiment https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/02/19/can-beef-farming-be-carbon-neutral-a-decade-long-experiment-in-australia-has-mixed-results

A livestock farm in Australia that won plaudits for being carbon neutral is no longer able to offset its emissions. Jigsaw Farms in south-western Victoria was well ahead of the curve at countering the hefty climate impact of cattle farming, boasting its carbon neutral status as early as 2011. But a new report tracking the family farm’s climate impact suggests it tipped into the red in 2017, and has since been emitting more greenhouse gas emissions than it can sequester... Planting hundreds and thousands of trees while nurturing the soil helped to sequester a significant volume of carbon. This effectively neutralised the annual emissions of wool, lamb and beef production. “In the early 2010s we were pretty cocky that we had conquered this thing”... But a new report... finds this balance was relatively short lived. “Cows and sheep are still there producing the same amount of methane [every year], but the trees grow up and carbon sequestration slows down”... An agricultural economist... has been studying Jigsaw’s emissions for years... He describes “the law of diminishing returns” behind the carbon flip. Young trees absorb more carbon as they grow, and Jigsaw’s have now passed the point of peak sequestration - meaning they take in less CO2 year-on-year. While the soil, initially boosted by a switch to deep-rooted perennial grasses, is now saturated with carbon so can’t take in any more from the atmosphere... the farm sequestered 70 per cent to 83 per of its annual emissions in 2021. By 2031... Jigsaw will absorb just over half of what it did in 2012, when carbon sequestration peaked... Methane emitted by cows accounts for a whopping 80 per cent of the sector’s emissions, which makes this a key target area for climate-conscious farmers... But the industry is still belching out methane at an unsustainable rate. Individual studies like those tracking Jigsaw’s emissions are needed to weigh up the claims of animal farms. Agriculture writer and farming critic George Monbiot compares it to banking: there is both the climate current account and climate capital account to consider. The former refers to the gases released by farming animals, while the latter covers the carbon dioxide the land could absorb if it were a wild ecosystem. The issue is that while individual farms like Jigsaw can be exemplary, carbon neutral farming on the scale that meat is currently demanded is simply unworkable. Around 45 per cent of the world’s habitable land is currently used for agriculture... 80 per cent of this land is dedicated to either grazing animals or growing crops used to feed livestock - a surface area equivalent to the Americas. The remaining portion of habitable land is already dominated by forests, so it’s hard to see where the trees needed to offset the world’s farms could go. Much less land can be used for farming... not only to tackle climate change but also biodiversity loss, which food production is the biggest driver of.

An absolute environmental sustainability assessment of food https://doi.org/10.1002/fft2.371

The food sector is a major user of land and freshwater and a source of considerable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This puts pressure on Earth systems and jeopardizes the future of food production. The environmental impact of foods is well understood... we describe a metric that converts the environmental impact of foods into a quantitative environmental sustainability scale (performance-weighted environmental sustainability, PwES). Land use, freshwater use, and GHG emission impacts of common foods have been weighted by their nutritional content and normalized so that values greater than 100% are considered unsustainable. Our findings concur with the conventional wisdom that the high impact of meat is unsustainable, whereas vegetables are typically produced sustainably... without reductions to the environmental impact of food, it is very difficult to eat sustainably. A high-bread vegan diet could be found that provided minimum nutritional requirements and was environmentally sustainable... Animal products use unsustainably large areas of land, especially lamb and beef and eggs and dairy. The land use PwES values, even at the 10th percentile, are an order of magnitude greater than what can be considered sustainable. Conversely, the land use required to produce nonleguminous plant-based foods is, on average, considered sustainable. Legumes such as peas and lentils need to be produced with half the current average land use to meet the designated sustainable limit. Sugars and vegetable oils also require unsustainably high areas of land; these foods suffer for their lack of nutritional diversity... The meats of ruminant animals (sheep and cattle) are the least sustainable of the dataset... The PwES assessment of foods is generally consistent with related studies, emphasizing the high environmental impact of meat and indicating that plant-based foods are more sustainable... For animal products to be considered sustainable, the reduction in GHG emissions needed is far greater than the optimistic 10%–15% range projected by Springmann et al. (2018). Transportation accounts for an average of 26% of fruit and vegetable GHG emissions, which are often produced sustainably anyway, and the impact of transportation becomes less significant... future reductions to the impact of transport (and other energy-intensive actions such as refrigeration) will only have a small influence on the sustainability of our food supply. Increased renewable energy in the electricity mix will make a considerable difference to the impact of many foods where the GHG emissions of cooking are the major contributor to the climate change PwES value (generally roasted or baked foods). Nevertheless, the most optimistic reductions in GHG emissions across the food supply chain will only reduce climate change PwES values below the sustainable threshold for those foods with PwES values already only marginally above 100% (e.g., peas)... Widespread reductions to food waste, overconsumption, and diets with less red meat are needed in combination with technological changes to create a sustainable food supply sector...

Adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet in relation to mortality https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108495

A global transition to healthy and sustainable diets is pivotal to improve population-level health and reduce anthropogenic environmental pressures. In the absence of scientific targets to realise this transition, the EAT-Lancet Diet was developed as a universal reference diet... and focuses primarily on the consumption of plant-based foods with a lower environmental impact compared to animal-based foods. As such, the EAT-diet mainly includes fruit and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated fats from plant sources... current studies have found both health and environmental benefits of adhering to the EAT-diet...

A protein transition can free up land https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.12.016

Replacing animal products can free up vast pasture and cropland areas... Using freed-up land for biomass production can help unlock a large BECCS [bioenergy with carbon capture and storage] potential... Animal-source foods use resources inefficiently because animals consume more food than they provide, and feeding the animals requires considerable land and water. We show that a protein transition could free up extensive resources... even modest adoption levels of alternative proteins could free up large agricultural areas... other emerging alternative proteins such as cultured meat and mycoprotein could be suitable beef replacements and are estimated to have lower land needs than most meat alternatives. Released areas could help mitigate climate change, as we explored, but they may also provide multiple other benefits. Land-use options, such as natural succession, reforestation, and biochar, could help mitigate climate change with cobenefits for biodiversity and ecosystem services...

Environmental sustainability of food production and consumption https://foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/10539

The overarching advice to all Nordic and Baltic countries, in line with the current body of scientific literature, is to shift to a more plant based dietary pattern and avoid food waste... there is a high potential and necessity to shift food consumption across the countries to minimize its environmental impact. More specifically, a substantial reduction in meat and dairy consumption and increased consumption of legumes/pulses, whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds is suggested as a priority intervention. Reducing the environmental impacts of seafoods is also key...

Sustainability benefits of transitioning from current diets to plant-based https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45328-6

[Diets rich in plant-based alternatives] substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions (30–52%), land use (20–45%), and freshwater use (14–27%), with the vegan diet showing the highest reduction potential. We observe comparable environmental benefits when ASFs [animal-source foods] are replaced with WFs [whole plant foods], underscoring the need to reduce ASF consumption...

Soil Carbon Cannot Offset Livestock Emissions https://www.desmog.com/2024/02/01/climate-change-livestock-methane-carbon-sequestration-claims/

About 30 percent of global methane emissions come from ruminants, which belch large volumes of the potent greenhouse gas as part of their digestive process. Each year, a single cow can burp up more than 200 pounds of methane, which warms the planet about 27 times faster than carbon dioxide. At the same time, the nitrous oxide ruminants emit through their manure has 273 times the warming potential of CO2. Estimates suggest there are 1.5 billion cattle on Earth — to say nothing of sheep, bison, and goats — and these emissions contribute powerfully to global climate change. Studies show that failing to reduce them could break our ability to hit the all-important 2-degree Celsius threshold outlined in the Paris Agreement...

EU Climate Advisory Board: Focus on immediate implementation

https://climate-advisory-board.europa.eu/news/eu-climate-advisory-board-focus-on-immediate-implementation-and-continued-action-to-achieve-eu-climate-goals

In a new report, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change recommends a series of actions to put the EU on track towards climate neutrality... The Advisory Board found that emissions in agriculture are not decreasing, mainly due to a lack of adequate financial incentives for farmers... To address this, the Advisory Board recommends better aligning the EU’s common agricultural policy with the EU climate ambitions, including by shifting support away from emission-intensive agricultural practices such as livestock production, and towards lower-emitting products and activities. The EU should shift CAP support away from emission-intensive agricultural practices, including livestock production, and towards lower-emitting products... In parallel, the EU should strengthen measures to encourage healthier, more plant-based diets, and develop a framework for just transition to an agricultural sector consistent with the climate neutrality objective... The Farm to Fork Strategy should be translated into concrete policies for delivering a sustainable food system, reducing food waste and encouraging healthy, plant-based diets... From a broader perspective, there is a need to shift towards healthier diets, reducing the over-consumption of animal products and increasing the consumption of plant products, since these are associated with lower emissions...

Options for reducing a city's global biodiversity footprint https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140712

Urban food consumption contributes significantly to global biodiversity loss. To ensure a sustainable food supply for the growing urban population a transformation of food production and consumption patterns is necessary. Here, options for reducing the food-related biodiversity footprint of Vienna... were assessed regarding measures of product substitution, demand reduction through avoidance of waste and caloric overconsumption and a shift from imports to domestic production. The biodiversity footprints of 24 food consumption patterns were calculated with a life-cycle-assessment approach... diets with less animal products could reduce the footprint by 21%–43%, while waste reduction and adhering to the recommended caloric intake could reduce the footprint by 5% and 9%, respectively. Decreasing the demand for primary biomass under alternative diets could also free up domestic cropland and allow for reducing imports and relocating production from abroad to Austria. This could reduce Vienna's biodiversity footprint additionally by 5%–21%, depending on diet and demand level, due to comparatively higher yields and lower native species richness in Austria. Results further indicate that shifting towards a vegetarian diet requires the least product substitution per footprint reduction among the examined alternative diets. Substituting animal products with plant-based alternatives from area-efficient production systems located outside of biodiversity hotspots emerges as a promising strategy for Western cities to reduce their biodiversity footprint...

Meat and dairy industry’s attempt to change how we measure methane emissions https://theconversation.com/meat-and-dairy-industrys-attempt-to-change-how-we-measure-methane-emissions-would-let-polluters-off-the-hook-219362

Lobbyists from major polluting industries were out in force at the recent UN climate summit, COP28. Groups representing the livestock industry, which is responsible for around 32% of global methane emissions, want to increase their use of a new way of measuring these emissions that lets high polluters evade their responsibility to make big emissions cuts... But ramping down methane emissions rapidly would have a swift and positive effect on global heating. To understand the climate effects of different activities and develop pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, it is often useful to combine the effects of different gases into a single metric. GWP100... However, GWP100 fails to capture the different ways methane and carbon dioxide behave in the atmosphere. It also masks the more intense short-term effect of methane compared to carbon dioxide... So in 2016, scientists... proposed a new method for modelling methane and carbon dioxide together called GWP*. This model is more complex... But, because it relies on changes since the baseline year, GWP* can allow a historically high emitter to look good by making minor cuts to their emissions. When used at any level other than globally, the use of the baseline year bakes in the current unequal distribution of responsibility for methane emissions and simply projects this situation into the future. The usual baseline year is 20 years before today, and so would imply rich countries’ retaining their high share of global methane emissions, mainly due to their high meat and dairy consumption. This precludes any debate about the equity of responsibility for current and ongoing emissions, and favours today’s high emitters, while not allowing developing countries with low emissions any space to grow in the future. The tempting narrative that some in the beef and dairy industry have started to promote is that GWP* (“the latest science”) tells us methane emissions are not as serious as we thought they were, and only small reductions are required. Industry-backed statements along the lines of the “UK’s livestock is not contributing to climate heating since numbers have not increased in recent years” may seem correct and convincing when looking at the GWP* results without delving into the nuances. The correct statement, however, is that the “UK’s livestock is not contributing additional warming compared to already high levels”.... This narrative is dangerous. It can be used to shift the burden of responsibility for tackling climate change further away from the agricultural sector. And it conceals the important role that methane reduction can play in keeping temperature rise to within 1.5°C, particularly by enabling near-term reductions of warming... The authors of GWP* cautioned that using it to water down ambitious climate mitigation targets would lead to invalid results... Because of the added complexity of GWP*... it is not a drop-in replacement for existing greenhouse gas accounting metrics like GWP100. To do so is akin to setting a temperature target in celsius but then reporting progress in fahrenheit. Research has found that such a replacement would imperil the Paris agreement’s goals. The meat and dairy lobby are (correctly) betting on policymakers not understanding these subtle yet vital differences. We must not allow these high emitters to shirk their responsibilities.

The meat and dairy industry is not ‘climate neutral’ https://theconversation.com/the-meat-and-dairy-industry-is-not-climate-neutral-despite-some-eye-catching-claims-219369

Imagine a house is on fire, and someone is actively pouring gas on the fire. They then pour a little less gas and want credit for doing so, despite still feeding the fire. Perhaps they claim they are now “fire neutral”. We’d rightly be very sceptical of such claims. Yet that is more or less what some influential supporters of the livestock industry have done... The claims are especially striking because methane is a potent greenhouse gas that accounts for 0.5°C of global warming so far, and we know that livestock production accounts for about one-third of human-caused emissions... So these claims certainly deserve scrutiny. In a paper now published... I argue that these claims represent a distorted understanding of the science. There’s a risk that they could be used for greenwashing and undermining confidence in this area of climate science. We show how easily subtle shifts in definitions, combined with overlooking key facts, can distort understanding to the point where significant emitters of greenhouse gases are presented as “climate neutral”. The term “climate neutral” was first coined by policy makers to refer to net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases. These gases were measured using a long-established scale that represents their warming effect over a 100-year period, expressed in CO₂ equivalents – this is the so-called “global warming potential” or GWP100... But GWP100 is still imperfect because while most methane is in the atmosphere for only a couple of decades, carbon dioxide can linger for centuries. That’s why in 2018 some academics introduced a new metric called GWP* to better represent the warming impact over time. But the reports we examine have used GWP* to subtly shift the meaning of the term climate neutral from net-zero emissions to net-zero additional warming, where “additional” refers to warming on top of that already caused by the livestock sector, not warming compared to if the sector stopped entirely. This means a historically high emitter such as the beef industry can get off easily. Using GWP*, a livestock sector with high but declining methane emissions can claim to be climate neutral since it adds less additional methane to the atmosphere – and therefore less additional warming – each year. This is referred to in some of these studies as a “cooling effect”, which is misleading since it’s not cooling the atmosphere, only warming it slightly less. These studies also fail to make clear that, like methane itself, this “cooling” effect of methane reductions is temporary. And the level at which they stabilise will likely still be high enough to cause significant warming...

Legumes: A Vehicle for Transition to Sustainability https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16010098

Legumes are an excellent source of protein and have been used in the human diet for centuries. Consumption of legumes has been linked to several health benefits, including a lower risk of cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and certain types of cancer, while legumes’ high fiber content promotes digestive health. Aside from the positive health benefits, one of the most significant advantages of legumes is the low environmental footprint of their cultivation. They can be grown in a variety of climates and soil types, and they require less water and fertilizer than other crops, making them a sustainable option for farmers. Thanks to their nutritional and physicochemical properties, they are widely used by the food industry since the growing popularity of plant-based diets and the increasing demand for alternatives to meat offers the opportunity to develop legume-based meat substitutes. As the use of legumes as a source of protein becomes widespread, new market opportunities could be created for farmers and food industries, while the reduction in healthcare costs could have a potential economic impact. Achieving widespread adoption of legumes as a sustainable source of protein requires coordinated efforts by individuals, governments, and the private sector. The objective of this narrative review is to present the benefits coming from legume consumption in terms of health and environmental sustainability, and underline the importance of promoting their inclusion in the daily dietary pattern as well as their use as functional ingredients and plant-based alternatives to animal products...

Environmental Indicators of Vegan and Vegetarian Diets https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010249

... the production of animal-derived foods significantly contributes to the environmental footprint of the agri-food sector, considering, among others, such indicators as land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and the water footprint... The aim of this study was... to assess the environmental indicators of vegetarian, vegan, and meat-containing diets of a selected group of Polish consumers... The study showed the elimination of meat and other animal-derived foods from the respondents’ diet was predominantly motivated by their concerns related to animal welfare issues, which appeared to be a stronger factor than the willingness to reduce the diets’ environmental footprint... [still,] the studied vegetarian and vegan diets were characterized by 47.0% and 64.4% lower carbon footprint, 32.2% and 60.9% lower land use indicators, and 37.1% and 62.9% lower water footprints, respectively, compared to the meat-containing diet. Animal-derived foods, including milk and dairy, appeared to be the main contributors to all three environmental footprint indicators of both the meat-containing and the vegetarian diets... The study confirms moving towards more plant-based diet has a potential to significantly reduce the diet’s environmental footprint... The environmental impact of food production and consumption is multidimensional and primarily concerns greenhouse gas emissions, land use for agriculture as well as water resources consumption (water footprint). It is estimated approximately 26% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions result from processes related to food production, processing, distribution, and consumption, of which agriculture-related emissions account for... 81% when emissions related to the land-use change are included... livestock production, globally, accounts for about 5% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, 44% of CH4 emissions, and 53% of N2O emissions. Cattle farming accounts for approximately 65% of emissions from this sector... beef is the least efficient source of protein in terms of CO2 eq. emissions generated... The main sources of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock include enteric fermentation of ruminants, cultivation, and production of feeds, land use change related to the expansion of pasture for grazing animals and cropland for growing feed crops, manure management, energy use in the production, and finally all emissions related to processing. An important aspect of the environmental impact of food production is the use of land... in 2019 land area used by agriculture accounted for 4.8 billion hectares and about one-third of the global land area. Of this, about one-third was cropland, while the remaining two-thirds were covered by meadows and pastures used for livestock. In addition, about one-third of the mentioned cropland was dedicated to forage crops. Such a contribution of the livestock production to the land use is due to the fact that far more energy and protein needs to be provided to livestock compared to the amount of energy and nutrients that can be obtained from their products. The protein conversion factor for none of the animal-based products is higher than 30%, which means at least 70% of the protein consumed by livestock is then not available for human consumption. Beef has the lowest protein and energy conversion factor. On average, only 3.8% of the plant proteins supplied to beef cattle in feeds is then available for human consumption in the final product. This is one of the main reasons why beef is the most disadvantageous product in terms of land use. A third important indicator of the environmental impact of food production is water footprint... Among all food products, beef is considered to generate the largest water footprint. For the same energy value, it has about 20 times the water footprint of cereal crops... As with the land use rates, the differences in water footprint between various animal products are primarily caused by different feed conversion efficiencies, and consequently different feed requirements. Plant-based foods are generally characterized by significantly smaller water footprints per equal nutritional value than foods of animal origin...

America is draining its precious groundwater https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/24/climate/groundwater-crisis-chicken-cheese.html

America’s striking dietary shift in recent decades, toward far more chicken and cheese, has not only contributed to concerns about American health but has taken a major, undocumented toll on underground water supplies. The effects are being felt in key agricultural regions nationwide as farmers have drained groundwater to grow animal feed. In Arkansas for example, where cotton was once king, the land is now ruled by fields of soybeans to feed the chickens, a billion or so of them, that have come to dominate the region’s economy. And Idaho, long famous for potatoes, is now America’s largest producer of alfalfa to feed the cows that supply the state’s huge cheese factories. Today alfalfa, a particularly water-intensive crop used largely for animal feed, covers 6 million acres of irrigated land, much of it in the driest parts of the American West. These transformations are tied to the changing American diet. Since the early 1980s, America’s per-person cheese consumption has doubled, largely in the form of mozzarella-covered pizza pies. And last year, for the first time, the average American ate 100 pounds of chicken, twice the amount 40 years ago… Most of America’s irrigated farmland grows crops that don’t directly feed humans but instead are used to feed animals or to produce ethanol for fuel. And most of that irrigation water comes from aquifers. Those crops have expanded into areas that don’t have enough water to sustain them, affecting some important aquifers across the country by contributing to groundwater overuse. Aquifer depletion for animal feed is occurring in places including Texas, the Central Valley of California, the High Plains in Kansas, Arizona and other areas that lack enough water from rivers and streams to irrigate the crops. Irrigated acreage for corn, about half of which goes toward animal feed, jumped sixfold between 1964 and 2017, federal numbers show. Irrigated acres for soybean, mostly used for animals, has jumped eightfold… The toll on aquifers, which supply 90 percent of America’s water systems, has been devastating. A Times investigation this year revealed that many of those aquifers are being severely overtaxed by agriculture and industry, and that the federal government has left oversight to the states, where tangles of rules are failing to protect those aquifers. Food choices have long led to debates not only about personal health, but also animal welfare, cultural expectations and the role of government regulations in shaping people’s diets. The damage that animal agriculture is doing to fragile aquifers, while less documented, is particularly important: The decline of the aquifers could affect what Americans eat, and potentially become a threat to America’s food supply… today aquifer levels are far below where they were 50 years ago. And they continue to fall. “We’ve been using more water than we’ve been putting back into the aquifer… Everybody thought, this was such a huge resource, we can’t ever deplete it”… But each pound of cheese produced requires, on average, 10 pounds of milk. And the cows producing that milk need to eat high-protein foods, including alfalfa… growing alfalfa can consume significantly more water than potatoes, barley or wheat… As the dairy industry has exploded… it’s changed the crop rotation from low-water-use crops to high-water-use crops… Arkansas is America’s chicken headquarters… As a result, soybean acres have soared over the decades, becoming the state’s largest row crop, nearly all grown on land irrigated with groundwater. Corn acreage has increased as well, also using groundwater. Taken together, corn, soybean, and water for poultry operations account for more than half the state's water use. Then there’s the state’s most famous crop: rice, also grown with groundwater. That has stressed what was once a bountiful aquifer… Almost two-thirds of the state’s aquifer-monitoring wells show a decrease in water levels since 1980, one of the worst rates in the country… It adds up to hundreds of gallons of water used to produce each grocery-store rotisserie bird. Though beef remains the most water intensive meat, the huge increase in consumption of less expensive chicken contributes to the high water intensity of the American diet…

A novel LCA-based indicator for food dishes https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140241

Many studies aimed at estimating the environmental impacts associated with the food sector, but most of the existing developed indicators limited the problem only to the climate change, while it is well-known that the food sector may extend its influence on a wider spectrum of environmental categories. In this work, the Life Cycle Assessment was applied to a list of 1001 recipes for an Italian food canteen, prepared with more than 150 ingredients, with the purpose to develop a comprehensive environmental indicator... includes... global warming potential (GWP), particulate matter formation, land occupation, human non-carcinogenic toxicity and water consumption... meat-based and fish-based recipes resulted the main impacting ones (77% for the former and 73% for the latter), demonstrating to be the two classes mainly responsible for the environmental impacts observed, even if the vegetarian and vegan food dishes represent the 41% in mass… The key findings can be summarized as follows: Meat-based dishes are found to be the most impacting ones... while the remaining 4 are dominated by fish-based dishes...

How sustainable is plant-based meat? Beyond Meat answered https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/beyond-meat-lca-burger-vs-beef-environmental-impact/

In 2018, Beyond Meat commissioned... a life-cycle assessment (LCA) of its original Beyond Burger (launched in 2015), which found that the plant-based product produces 90% fewer greenhouse gas emissions, requires 46% less energy, has over 99% less impact on water scarcity, and 93% less impact on land use, compared to beef. The Beyond Burger has gone through two more iterations since then, culminating in version 3.0, which was released in 2021. Now, it has released a second LCA – conducted by Dutch research firm Blonk Consultants and compliant with ISO standards – comparing this product to a conventional beef patty... the new Beyond Meat LCA focused on global warming impact, land use, water consumption, and non-renewable fossil resource scarcity... When compared to a standard 80/20 quarter-pound beef patty produced in the US, the LCA found that Beyond Meat’s burger generates 90% fewer GHG emissions, requires 37% non-renewable energy, uses 97% less land, and consumes 97% less water. If incorporating land use change, even with the ingredient production being the main driver for the plant-based patty, the Beyond Burger has 89% less global warming impact. These results are comparable to the 2018 LCA of the first Beyond Meat burger.

Behaviors towards Plant-Rich Dietary Patterns and Practices https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15234990

Expert groups recommend that populations adopt dietary patterns higher in whole, plant-based foods and lower in red and processed meat as a high-impact climate action... The United States’ food system and the average American dietary pattern are not sustainable for supporting long-term human and planetary health and societal well-being. There is growing consensus that sustainable diets support nutrition security and human health, environmental and ecological health, social equity, and economic prosperity... Reducing human consumption of red and processed meats and shifting people toward dietary patterns higher in minimally processed, whole-plant-based foods (i.e., pulses, legumes, whole grains, nuts, seeds, fruits, and vegetables) is a high-impact action that can mitigate the food system’s impact on climate change. This strategy has been recommended by US and international expert bodies to promote human and planetary health... The high US consumer demand for and overconsumption of red meat (i.e., beef, pork, and lamb) and processed meats is of particular concern, as diets rich in these products are linked to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and colorectal cancer... The large-scale industrialized agricultural production of beef in the US contributes to environmental degradation, as it requires significant water and land use compared to plant-based foods, and produces substantial greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, that negatively impact the climate...

Nitrogen pollution reduction targets: a more plant-based diet is key https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/nitrogen-pollution-reduction-targets-more-plant-based-diet-key-2023-12-20_en

Intensive livestock farming and a diet excessively rich in animal products results in substantial amounts of reactive nitrogen losses into the environment. This causes several forms of air, water and soil pollution, contributing to climate change. Depletion of nitrogen in the soil is considered one of the main causes of losses in biodiversity and natural resources. Healthy soils are the basis for our food security and for the work of farmers... Global nitrogen losses pose a serious threat to environmental sustainability. Excess nitrates can lead to water pollution resulting in algal blooms, biodiversity losses and air pollution. These losses also compromise the farming sector’s ability to feed a growing population, which is not sustainably possible with diets high in meat. This report strengthens the scientific evidence around nitrogen and food systems and calls for more ambitious actions to make the current food system more sustainable. A balanced range of actions, including halved meat and dairy consumption (‘demitarian’ approach) with improved farm and food chain management, and reinforcing a circular economy and the role of livestock in it, could achieve a 49% reduction in nitrogen losses. Encouraging more plant-based diets can promote human health and a healthier planet... More balanced diets, predominantly plant-based, would have lower nitrogen footprints, less greenhouse gas emissions and would bring positive health outcomes. There are other health considerations too. High nitrate levels in our drinking water and food can increase the risk of non-communicable diseases, including cancer, thyroid disease and cardiovascular disease. Another way to reduce nitrogen losses from the soil, the scientists found, is to reduce food waste and improve wastewater treatment so more nutrients are recovered. The report also found that, in 2015, only 18% of nitrogen in the European food system was used in food and fibre products, while most of the remaining was wasted by loss to the environment, contributing to air, water and soil pollution, which threaten our climate, biodiversity and human health...

The Political Economy of Food System Transformation https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198882121.001.0001

Today’s food production and consumption has large consequences for the environment and human health. With respect to climate change, our food system is now responsible for at least a third of the global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In particular, the production of red meat has become the largest source of methane, which is a powerful short-lived GHG. Livestock production is also the single largest driver of habitat loss, and a leading cause of soil erosion, water, and nutrient pollution across the world, which increasingly compound pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. In addition, scientific evidence suggests strong associations between meat consumption and health risks including total mortality, cardiovascular diseases, colorectal cancer, and type 2 diabetes. This issue of overconsumption is particularly salient for developed countries and large emerging economies where meat consumption is high (i.e., >20–30kg per person per year). Recent systematic reviews suggest that domestic demand in countries with tropical rainforests cause a significant proportion of agriculturally driven tropical deforestation. Hence, rapid dietary changes toward more plant-based diets are a critical component of global food system transformation as they hold the promise to make important contributions to solving health, climate, and ecological crises. Without such changes, achieving the Paris Agreement targets and many Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is unlikely, even if all other sectors were to achieve rapid transition toward sustainability...

Sustainability concepts in plant-based and dairy yoghurts

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.105077

It is increasingly clear that the use of animal-based protein for food has unsustainable effects on the environment and human health due to the high demand that it places on land and water use, its heavy resource requirements for feed and housing, its production of greenhouse gases and the impact of animal fat on cardiovascular health. Transition to a plant-based diet is increasingly seen as a key goal for ensuring human health and the sustainability of global food supplies...

Plant-based diets: An analysis of the impact of a CO2 food label https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102216

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement within reach, ambitious climate action is required... the current global food system is responsible for up to 37 percent of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and contributes, amongst other things, to biodiversity loss, water scarcity, and deforestation, risking global food security in the long term. Further, unsustainable diets – especially the excessive consumption of animal products in industrialized countries – are a significant driver of the food systems’ negative environmental externalities. Although transforming the global food system will require action and changes by multiple actors along the supply chain... a demand-side shift that increases the share of plant-based diets would significantly decrease the carbon footprint of the latter.

Carbon opportunity cost increases footprint of grain-finished beef https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295035

Beef production accounts for the largest share of global livestock greenhouse gas emissions and is an important target for climate mitigation efforts. Most life-cycle assessments comparing the carbon footprint of beef production systems have been limited to production emissions. None also consider potential carbon sequestration due to grazing and alternate uses of land used for production. We assess the carbon footprint... including... carbon opportunity cost—the potential carbon sequestration that could occur on land if it were not used for production... We find that pasture-finished operations have 20% higher production emissions and 42% higher carbon footprint than grain-finished systems. We also find that more land-intensive operations generally have higher carbon footprints... The carbon opportunity cost of operations was, on average, 130% larger than production emissions. These results point to the importance of accounting for carbon opportunity cost in assessing the sustainability of beef production systems and developing climate mitigation strategies... Our conclusion that beef operations with low land-use intensity, including grain-finished operations, have lower carbon footprints than pasture-finished operations and others with high land-use intensity provides important insights for agricultural stakeholders globally such as in Brazil where pasture expansion is a leading driver of forest loss. Accounting for products’ carbon opportunity cost, not just production emissions or soil carbon sequestration, could shift which production systems government programs, corporate procurement, investors, and consumers incentivize.

We raise 18 billion animals a year to die — and don’t even eat them https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22890292/food-waste-meat-dairy-eggs-milk-animal-welfare

Almost 1 in every 4 animals raised on a factory farm never actually makes it to your plate. Instead, they die for nothing. That’s according to a study... that sheds new light on the global toll of food waste on animals... in 2019, 18 billion of the 75 billion pigs, chickens, turkeys, cows, goats, and sheep raised for food around the world were never eaten. The study counted animals wasted at any point in the supply chain: those who died prematurely on the farm or on the way to the slaughterhouse; wasted in processing; and by restaurants, grocers, and consumers. (The study, however, did not include wasted seafood, which would likely account for hundreds of billions of fish and shrimp.) Food waste is often thought of as just a food security issue — many people go hungry, and diverting edible food to those in need can prevent hunger and malnutrition. But it’s also a major environmental challenge. Food and agriculture account for around one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, so every bite of food that’s lost or wasted represents carbon emissions spewed into the atmosphere that didn’t need to be. And when food ends up in landfills, it generates methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas. All told, six percent of global greenhouse gas emissions stem from food waste. Wasting meat is especially bad for the environment, since it has a much higher carbon footprint than plant-based foods. Food waste reduction could be an important tool in mitigating the number of animals churned through the factory farm system — and its immense environmental and ethical toll...

Pledges to slash methane pollution at COP28 leave out one big thing https://www.vox.com/23996919/cop28-climate-methane-pledge-oil-gas-emissions-agriculture

Methane is a mighty greenhouse gas, roughly 30 times more powerful than carbon dioxide when it comes to trapping heat in the atmosphere. About 60 percent of global methane emissions come from human activity, accounting for a quarter of all warming. But unlike carbon dioxide, it doesn’t linger that long in the sky, so cutting humanity’s methane output is one of the fastest ways to reduce the planet’s rate of warming... From tilling soil to planting crops, to fertilizer, livestock, manure, harvesting, shipping, and waste, food systems produce 34 percent of overall greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture is the single-largest anthropogenic, or human-driven, source of methane, and most of that is from our appetite for meat. Animals raised for food account for 32 percent of human-driven methane. Just one cow can produce anywhere from 154 to 264 pounds of methane annually, so the 1.5 billion cattle raised for beef around the world together burp up 231 billion pounds of this greenhouse gas... According to the FAO, methane emissions from livestock have to fall 25 percent by 2030 compared to 2020 in order to stay on course for the Paris climate agreement goal to limit global warming this century to less than 1.5°C or 2.7°F. Overall emissions of heat-trapping gasses are still slated to increase, putting these goals almost out of reach...

Impacts of selected novel alternatives to conventional animal products https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/novel-meat-and-dairy-alternatives-could-help-curb-climate-harming

Emerging novel alternatives to animal products such as meat and dairy may contribute to significantly reducing the environmental footprint of the current global food system, particularly in high- and middle-income countries, provided they use low-carbon energy. This is a key finding of a new UN Environment Programme (UNEP) assessment of such new alternatives to animal agriculture, a sector accounting for up to a fifth of planet-warming emissions... these alternatives not only show significant potential for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but they can also contribute to reductions in land degradation and deforestation, water and soil pollution and loss of biodiversity, as well as to reducing the risks of zoonotic diseases and anti-microbial resistance. These novel alternatives could also help to significantly reduce animal welfare concerns, compared to their conventional counterparts... novel alternatives can likely play a role in supporting a more sustainable, healthier and more humane food system, with regional differences... “New food alternatives will offer a broader spectrum of consumer choices... Further, such alternatives can also lessen the pressures on agricultural lands and reduce emissions, thereby helping us address the triple planetary crisis – the crisis of climate change, the crisis of biodiversity and nature loss, the crisis of pollution and waste – as well as address the health and environmental consequences of the animal agriculture industry... The animal agriculture industry is a major driver of climate change: animal GHG emissions, feed production, changes in land use and energy-intensive global supply chains account for almost 60 per cent of food-related GHG emissions and 14-20 per cent of global GHG emissions...

Why do people accept or reject climate policies? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102544

Our food systems are a major driver of global environmental change, accounting for a third of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, a third of terrestrial acidification, and almost four-fifths of eutrophication globally. Through agriculture-driven deforestation and overharvesting of marine resources, food systems are also the major driver of biodiversity loss globally, both on land and in the sea. If we are to reach the global environmental targets we have agreed upon internationally—e.g., through the UN conventions on climate change and biological diversity—global systems are in urgent need of a sustainability transition. For a global transition in food systems to materialize, however, we will need a wide range of policy interventions supporting technical and behavioral changes across food supply chains, from producers to consumers. This is true not least for diet changes—in particular a shift from meat to plant-based food—which, in addition to having substantial health co-benefits, are required for keeping global food systems within environmental limits. The need for a shift to healthy and sustainable diets is also recognized in recent policy documents, like the EU Farm to Fork Strategy, or the new Nordic Nutrition Recommendations that calls for diets with less meat and more plant-based foods...

How food and agriculture contribute to climate change https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/factbox-how-food-agriculture-contribute-climate-change-2023-12-02/

Feeding the world is a big job, and the effort produces billions of mets of emissions of greenhouse gases each year - around a third of the global total. Despite the fact that food is a big climate problem, very little has been done so far to address it... One the biggest contributors is livestock. Global livestock production generates around 14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions... Cattle are responsible for 65% of those emissions, largely as methane... Emissions also come from producing and processing animal feed, including tilling land to grow crops, which releases carbon dioxide stored in the soil... When forests are cleared for agricultural purposes like raising livestock or growing crops [also for feed], stored carbon is released into the atmosphere. Deforestation is responsible for nearly 80% of emissions from food production in Brazil, for instance, the world's largest exporter of beef and soybeans [mostly used for feed]. Peatlands, meanwhile, store massive amounts of carbon - twice as much as the world's forests.Draining or burning peatlands for purposes like growing crops or livestock grazing is responsible for about 5% of all anthropogenic emissions...

Perception of plant-based meat analogues https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107135

Current Western diets with high levels of animal-derived foods, especially meat, are unsustainable, having negative impacts on climate and the environment, human health, animal welfare and global food security. To address these issues and achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals on a better and more sustainable future for all by 2030, a shift towards diets higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-derived foods is necessary...

There’s less meat at this year’s climate talks. But there’s plenty of bull https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/11/30/23981529/cop28-meat-livestock-dairy-farming-plant-based-united-nations-dubai-uae

One-third of global greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to food, with meat and dairy accounting for the lion’s share of it but providing just 18 percent of the world’s calories. Meat and dairy production are also leading causes of other environmental ills, including deforestation, biodiversity loss, pandemic risk, and water pollution. Dairy production alone emits more greenhouse gases than global aviation. Plant-based foods typically have a much smaller carbon footprint, and require far less land and water...

Willingness for more vegetarian meals in school canteens https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107134

The rise of noncommunicable diseases (e.g., obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases) as well as environmental threats (e.g., global warming, atmospheric pollution, water pollution and deforestation) requires the identification of dietary changes that will improve nutritional quality and reduce the environmental impact of diets. One of the dietary changes with the highest potential to help mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss and respond to health challenges is favouring plant-over animal-sourced food products by consuming more vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, unsaturated oil and less red and processed meat...

Consumers’ perception of plant-based alternatives and changes over time https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.105057

Food produces around 20 to 30% to the total environmental impact caused by humans. The production of animal products (i.e., meat and dairy) significantly contributes to the emission of greenhouse gases and biodiversity loss and animal suffering. As a result of these challenges and aiming to reduce the environmental impact of our diet, consumers have grown more aware of various sustainability issues including environmental protection or animal welfare. One result of this grown awareness is that our current levels of meat consumption have been questioned and that vegetarian and vegan (veg*an) diets have increased significantly in recent years... ... consumption levels significantly differ across countries and cultures. In the USA, it is relatively high with around 100 kg meat (sheep, pork, beef, and poultry) per capita and year. In Switzerland, it is lower with around 50 kg per capita and year... Current levels of meat consumption, however, come with some major challenges. In terms of health, some types of meat (i.e., processed meat or unprocessed red meat) have been found related to increased risk of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease, colorectal cancer or type-2 diabetes... Matching meat consumption with dietary guidelines to reduce these health risks at the same time reduces greenhouse gas emissions from meat production and thereby benefits the environment. Another reason not to eat meat are ethical concerns or animal welfare aspects...

Commercial weight-loss diets, greenhouse gas emissions and freshwater https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.13248

Weight-loss diets had GHGe [greenhouse gas emission] footprints on average 4.4 times the [plant-forward] EAT-Lancet target recommended for planetary health (range: 2.4–8.5 times). Bovine meat was by far the largest contributor of GHGe in most diets that included it... Dietary patterns suggested by marketing materials and guidelines from commercial weight-loss diets can have high GHGe and water footprints...

Environmental imprints of agricultural and livestock produce https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.13239

In India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, the production of livestock (meat/bovine/shrimp and milk) was reported to be harmful to the environment...

Meat versus alternatives: which is better for the environment and health? https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.13219

... meat alternatives are likely to be better for health according to most parameters, while also being more environmentally friendly, with lower GHGEs [greenhouse gas emissions]...

Simple dietary substitutions can reduce carbon footprints https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00864-0

Changing what foods we eat could reduce environmental harms and improve human health... If all consumers who ate the high-carbon foods instead consumed a lower-carbon substitute, the total dietary carbon footprint in the United States would be reduced by more than 35%... The foods we eat have major implications for both personal and planetary health. Food production is a key contributor to climate change, accounting for approximately a third of total human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Poor dietary quality is also a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, increasing the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers and contributing to an estimated 11 million deaths worldwide every year. Experts agree that substantial changes to food systems are needed to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change and curb rising rates of diet-related diseases. Adopting diets high in fruits, vegetables and legumes and lower in red and processed meats (and in particular, meats from ruminant animals) is one strategy for individuals to reduce both their personal carbon footprints from food production and their risk of diet-related diseases...

The effect of restaurant meal names on affective appeal https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.105042

Reducing meat consumption could materially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions... With food contributing nearly 25% to global emissions, changing meal choices for even the smallest of market segments can make a meaningful contribution to climate change mitigation...

Climate-Friendly, Health-Promoting, and Culturally Acceptable Diets https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2023091003

Many countries have committed themselves to substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) to address climate change. Due to the large share of emissions coming from food production, shifting to a more plant-based diet is desirable... Compared to the observed diet, the climate-friendly omnivorous diet contained less red meat, dairy products, and sweetened beverages but more bread, vegetables, and fruits...

Effective communication of plant-based foods https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323988285000152

Meat overproduction and overconsumption are at the centre of the debate concerning the protection of the planetary natural resources and the strategies that can be enacted to limit the negative consequences of current industry and consumption practices. While the food industry is responsible for almost 30% of total consumption’s environmental burdens, animal-based products, in particular, have a considerably more negative effect on the environment (e.g., green-house emission) than most nutritionally equivalent plant-based foods. As a result, calls have been put out for the broader adoption of diets incorporating more plant-based foods...

Farmers use more water from the Colorado River than some States https://projects.propublica.org/california-farmers-colorado-river/

As the Colorado River snakes through the deserts of the Southwest United States, its water is diverted to cities, states, tribes and farmers along its course. Drought, climate change and growth have taxed the river in recent decades, and the federal government has called for cuts in usage. But the water still flows... no group is owed more of the river than an irrigation district in the Imperial Valley, one of the driest stretches of California desert... a majority of the water consumed by farms in the valley goes to members of just 20 extended families. The district — and by extension, the farmers it serves — has access to enormous amounts of cheap water from the shrinking river... Farmers in one family... used an estimated 260,000 acre-feet, more water than the entire Las Vegas metropolitan area uses... only a few families used a majority of the water they got to grow food that people eat. Instead... most use the bulk of their water growing hay to feed livestock... Some of it is used to feed nearly 400,000 cows that are raised here in the scorching desert. Significant quantities are shipped out of the valley — both domestically and overseas... shipping alfalfa overseas to feed other nations’ livestock is akin to exporting water that’s desperately needed back home... While agriculture consumes the vast majority of the water used here, most of the crops are eaten by livestock... Ultimately... solutions like convincing American consumers to give up meat just one day a week might be the best way to save enough water to prop up the river. Until then, a small group of farmers will continue using more water than many cities.

Consumer values as shapers of meat alternative interest https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107114

The current food system is largely based on animals as the main protein source causing a burden on the environment. Worldwide, meat production is responsible for 57 % of food production greenhouse gas emissions, contributing also to water usage and loss of biodiversity. Considering that the global population tend to grow, the burden of meat consumption is expected to increase. To avoid this, a shift towards plant-based diets is required...

Designing climate labels for green food choices https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139490

The food we eat plays a large role in greenhouse gas emissions... Certain diets are associated with greater footprints. Dietary shifts, especially in wealthier nations with affluent diets, can substantially reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The reductions that can be achieved by technology is limited, therefore modifying consumption behavior is necessary... The food supply chain contributes to 26% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Agriculture produces the most emissions followed by food processing and logistics and the end-of-life phase. Farming accounts for 61% of food’s GHG emissions – 81% when taking deforestation into account... Rearing ruminants as a source of meat and milk contributes to high methane emissions and releases large quantities of GHG emissions through the clearing of forests for pasture and agricultural land. Raising meat is largely inefficient in that less than 10% of animal feed becomes edible meat and only 38 kg of plant-based animal feed is converted to 1 kg of edible beef. Other agricultural aspects associated with GHG emissions include enteric fermentation, manure management, and field burning among others... Although food producers can improve their impact by technically optimizing processes, agricultural emissions cannot be completely eliminated due to emissions from natural processes. Adopting a sustainable diet can achieve greater GHG reductions than can be achieved by producers. Compared to omnivorous diets (4.16 kg CO2e per day), vegan diets are associated with the lowest impacts (1.02 kg CO2e per day), followed by vegetarian (1.59 kg CO2e per day) and pesco-vegetarian (1.74 kg CO2e per day) diets. A plant-based diet reduces emissions by up to 49%, of which 73% are achieved by choosing lower impact alternatives and halving animal product consumption... Emissions from the production of organic or local foods as well as different types of food are also underestimated (e.g., meat and cheese) attribute this to the perceived lack of transparency of production and distribution processes of food and their associated impacts. Informing consumers of their impact can enable them to change their consumption patterns and ultimately achieve significant benefits for the environment...

The potential of CO2-based production cycles in biotechnology https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42790-6

Currently, food production is accountable for 25–30% of annual CO2 emissions, thereby constituting a major driver of the climate crisis. Additionally, we are using 38% of the global land surface for agriculture, of which approximately two-thirds are used as pasture land and one-third as crop land... the demand for food is growing - and so is the demand for land, a finite resource. Livestock husbandry... contributes significantly to agricultural CO2 emissions. In fact, worldwide meat production has exceeded 350 million tons per year and is accountable together with dairy production for 14.5% of annual greenhouse gas emissions, while delivering only 18% of the daily calorie intake consumed by humans. Producing and consuming meat, dairy, and other protein products in a way that has less of an impact on the environment is one of the most urgent global concerns...

“I'll take the easiest option please”. Carbon reduction preferences https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139398

The depth and breadth of the climate crisis is well known, all sectors, industry, government and the individual have the potential to reduce emissions to slow or stop catastrophic climate change... Results showed the public were unwilling to make large-scale lifestyle changes, even if they would cause large emission reductions. There was a clear preference for making relatively easy, convenient changes to behaviour rather than making more difficult personal lifestyle changes involving diet and transportation. The climate crisis is the biggest challenge of the modern age; our changing climate impacts all facets of human life and our behaviour directly influences the severity of the issues at hand. Since we have caused global climate change, human behaviour has a fundamental role in countering it. A large percentage of emissions are generated by households in developed countries through their consumption of goods and services. The United Kingdom (alongside America, Europe and other nations) far exceeds the limit of greenhouse gas emissions that would facilitate keeping the global temperature rise to 1.5°C... The scope of individual behaviours that need to change to limit global temperature rise to the 1.5°C value recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is vast. Whilst many policy interventions must target industrial polluters directly, the demand of individuals must also be addressed. Identifying and ranking which behaviours the public are willing to change in terms of their emission generation can aid in prioritising which carbon emission generation areas to target, and if the actions the public would prefer could yield significant reductions in carbon emissions... The most potent behavioural changes would be to areas such as personal transportation and diet that typically contribute a high percentage of an individual's carbon emissions. However, policies that require large scale lifestyle choices may spark considerable resistance when the public are expected to change in order to reduce emissions... However, this awareness does not translate into action, the preferences demonstrated across demographics and attitudes clearly show the public are unwilling to make the more difficult changes to their lifestyles, such as changing their diet – a daily challenge but one with a considerable potential for carbon reduction. The desire to consume, to carry on life as normal with its excess of carbon emissions and their detrimental effects outweighs the public's self-reported concerns and attitudes towards climate change.

Impacts of a Shift to Plant Proteins https://profundo.nl/en/projects/impacts-of-a-shift-to-plant-proteins

To restrict global warming to 1.5°C and avoid a further increase in catastrophic weather events, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be significantly cut by 2030. Agriculture, particularly unsustainably high livestock production, is one significant contributor to human made GHG emissions. This role is caused by direct emissions, including the release of the highly potent GHG methane from enteric fermentation processes of ruminants and manure management, as well as indirect emissions due to high feed consumption. Moreover, meat production is linked to a significantly larger land and water footprint than plant products. Beef, pork, and chicken are responsible for the largest share of GHG emissions, land use and water pollution from livestock. Their consumption has reached unprecedented volumes and is forecast to further increase... As a blanket reduction worldwide would further enshrine inequalities for low-income geographies, this research focusses global reduction scenarios on regions with exceedingly high animal protein intake in the Global North and some high-consuming nations in Latin America and Asia. A 30%-reduction of conventional meat production by 2030 against a 2021 baseline and substitution with a mix of alternative protein products are estimated to lead to net savings of more than 700 million tons of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) emissions, or the annual emissions of Saudi Arabia. It would also reduce land requirements by more than 3 million km2 or the entire area of India. Moreover, almost 19 km3 of surface and groundwater could be saved... Europe (EU+UK) has a much higher per capita consumption of meat than the global average. If Europeans would substitute meat with alternative products on two days per week, this would mean a reduction in their meat consumption by about 40%. Next to significant savings in land and water use, the estimated net GHG emission savings from such a cut equal about 2% of the annual global emissions from meat production. With beef having the largest environmental footprint among livestock, the estimates find that a 30% reduction in beef production in key regions would make 1.9 million km2 of land with potential for food crop production available, an area equal to Mexico. Growing a mix of protein crops on the freed land could increase the global availability of plant proteins by more than 50 million tons. This additional protein volume could fulfil the protein needs of more than 20% of the world population in 2030. The prominent actors in the global meat supply chain – slaughterhouses, retailers, and food service companies – account for a considerable share of meat sales and related profits. This gives them a responsibility for the associated GHG emissions and land and water footprint and to contribute to their reduction. Looking at 20 leading meat producers, a 30% cut in their annual beef, pork and chicken meat output and replacement with alternative protein products could reduce GHG emissions by a volume similar to the annual emissions of the Netherlands. Based on different protein substitution scenarios, a replacement of half the beef, pork, and chicken meat sales of five leading international retailers and one food service companies could save more than 30 million tons of GHG emissions, similar to the annual emissions of Norway... Fast-food chain McDonald’s with its worldwide restaurant network is alone responsible for sourcing around 1.5% of the global beef production... a 50% cut in beef sales by the chain and replacement with alternative products could save more than 15 million tons of GHG emissions, free a land area the size of Austria, and save the equivalent blue water volume of 80,000 swimming pools...

Grain legume production in Europe for food, feed and meat-substitution https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2023.100723

Partial shifts from animal-based to plant-based proteins in human diets could reduce environmental pressure from food systems and serve human health. Grain legumes can play an important role here... we assessed area expansion and yield increases needed for European self-sufficiency of faba bean, pea and soybean. We show that such production could use substantially less cropland (4–8%) and reduce GHG emissions (7–22% [from] current meat production) when substituting for animal-derived food proteins... It is widely understood that global food systems need to be transformed to reduce their substantial adverse environmental impacts, e.g., methane emission from livestock and N2O emissions from fertilizer use at crops. The production of meat-sourced proteins is of particular concern, as their environmental impact is around ten times greater on a mass basis and has CO2 emissions around 30 times more than those of plant-based proteins. At the same time, there is currently increased interest in plant-based proteins, due to awareness that a protein transition from animal-to plant-based would enhance healthy and sustainable diets... At the same time, area expansion of legumes will lead to more diverse cropping systems, which is advocated by many... The effect of biological N fixation, and delivery of ecosystem services by enhanced crop protection against pests and diseases thanks to a more diverse cropping system and consequent yield enhancement of subsequent crops in the rotation, are often underestimated by farmers. This is likely to become more important now that fertilizer prices have increased and European policies target the reduction of external inputs and emissions… The substitution of mineral nitrogen fertilisers through biologically fixed nitrogen by grain legumes will also lower GHG emission in agriculture. Substantial extra environmental benefits can be achieved when legumes are directly used for human consumption, instead of indirectly by conversion through feed into livestock. We estimated the GHG savings to be ca. 25–74 Tg CO2 eqv. (7–22% reduction in emissions from meat production), and land savings ca. 6–11 M ha (4–8% of current cropland) depending on the production scenario chosen. Such dietary changes require significant changes in the food system, human nutrition and associated behaviour, which will require substantial time and incentives.

Impact of pictorial warning labels on meat meal selection https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107026

Meat consumption has been linked to adverse health consequences, worsening climate change, and the risk of pandemics... meat consumption has been linked to poorer health outcomes, worsening climate change, and more recently as a contributor to pandemic infections. For example, excessive meat consumption is associated with increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, infertility, diabetes, and cancer... Meat consumption also contributes heavily to deaths from pollution and climate change with meat production in China being linked to 90,000 pollution related deaths and in the United States being linked to nearly 13,000 pollution related deaths. Between 12 and 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the livestock industry... meat-free diets can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and biodiversity loss relative to standard diets. To help combat climate change consuming at least 20% less meat is recommended...

The effects of dietary changes in Europe on greenhouse gas emissions https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad0681

Livestock farming is one of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions. In Europe, the agricultural sectors of Ireland and Denmark are the most livestock-intensive. Based on a scenario analysis using the CGE model MAGNET, this study estimates the effects of dietary changes toward the recommendations of the EAT-Lancet Commission in Europe on the agricultural sector of Ireland and Denmark. Results show that full adoption of the [plant-forward] diet leads to significant reductions in agricultural emissions, particularly methane, with potential emission savings of 26.4%... in Ireland and 21.7%... in Denmark... Policymakers should promote plant-based diets and monitor export dynamics to achieve effective emission reductions. Additionally, methane mitigation strategies should be integrated into climate plans...

Health and sustainability impacts of scenarios of replacement of beef https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad160.347

High consumption of red meat is an important cause of burden of disease and environmental degradation globally. To motivate changes in food consumption and production, policymakers need evidence on the overall impact of such changes on the health of citizens, and on all aspects of sustainability: environment, socioeconomics, and culture... we compared the impact of four scenarios of replacement of beef consumption with pulses (a well-established plant protein source) in two EU countries, Portugal and Denmark. First, health impacts were quantified in disability-adjusted life years (DALY); second, sustainability impact was measured using various social, economic and environmental indicators. Finally, we used... an interactive, iterative, multicriteria decision analysis approach, to create a quantitative value model. We estimated positive health impacts for all substitution scenarios in the two populations... The two countries had positive economic impacts... Environmental and social impacts of beef production were consistently higher [= worse] than pulses... each approach allowed us to compare health, sustainability and integrated impacts of different options for food substitutions relevant to the sustainability agenda... Different possible scenarios of substitution of beef consumption by pulses, an alternative plant-based protein source, will lead to overall positive health and sustainability impacts...

A rebalanced discussion of the roles of livestock in society https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00866-y

The many roles of animals in modern agriculture and food systems have come under considerable scrutiny in the context of sustainability. A recent Correspondence presented The Dublin Declaration... the Correspondence contains unsubstantiated generalizations and statements that go beyond the focus of the Declaration, particularly regarding the expansion of livestock production. The authors... overlooked or downplayed research demonstrating the incompatibility of current and projected levels of consumption of animal products with the imperatives of bringing humanity’s economy within the planetary biophysical limits, that is, making it sustainable. If humanity accepts the use of other sentient beings for food and other purposes, meat as such is neither good nor bad. Yet, the current production and consumption of meat and other animal-derived foods in current quantities and qualities compromise the state of the environment, societal prosperity and stability, human and animal health and welfare, and epidemiological safety, thereby reducing overall societal well-being through accumulated negative externalities Global adoption of the so-called modern, Western diets, to which the world is rapidly transitioning, is both quantifiably unachievable within the planetary resource base and unnecessary to meet human dietary requirements. The biggest issue in modern research on the role of livestock in human diets and livelihoods is not about accumulating more evidence to support the above, but about the best pathways to just transitions to sustainable food systems. This means food systems that take full account of people without sufficient access to adequate food or resources to provide for it, as well as actors whose livelihoods are currently dependent on livestock. Shifting diets in high-income countries away from meat and dairy towards more diverse sources of protein and micronutrients, while amending socio-demographic differences in animal food consumption, is consistently identified as a key aspect of these pathways. It is also fully in line with the Declaration’s concerns. The focus of the Declaration is on livestock production according to agroecological principles... However, research clearly shows that it is not possible to produce the amounts of meat corresponding to current or projected consumption levels under such principles while avoiding further deforestation and meeting environmental targets. That is, a transition to agroecological practices requires reductions in livestock consumption. Highly intensive production systems suffer from many environmental and social challenges, but at present they supply the most cost-effective and affordable animal products that enable Western diets. Only through downsizing global livestock production, internalizing its externalities and, consequently, making meat into a high-value food can agroecological systems be mainstreamed... Finally, a comprehensive ethical analysis does not endorse favouring economic or socio-cultural factors over the obligation to uphold the interests of morally significant beings. To include only humans in the latter group is now widely regarded as speciesism or human chauvinism. Economic needs depend on socio-political arrangements and are by no means immutable conditions determining the ‘necessity’ for livestock, especially in numbers beyond health requirements...

Healthiness and sustainability of food service in healthcare settings https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad160.008

Current dietary patterns threaten individual and planetary health. Healthcare settings can set a positive example for dietary change, but data on the quality of food they offer is scarce. Preliminary analysis... showed that animal-source foods (ASF) accounted for 70% of overall GHG emissions and land use and 76% of water use, primarily from beef, pork, milk, and cheese. Among plant-based foods, coffee disproportionately contributed to the environmental footprint. Red meat accounted for 30-45% of lunch calories consumed (13-25% of weight) and potatoes accounted for 20-24% of calories (31-35% of weight), whereas vegetables and legumes combined accounted for 11-15% of calories (33-35% of weight)... Healthcare institutions in Germany have poor adherence to the PHD [Planetary Health Diet], with up to two-thirds of calories derived from red meat and potatoes. Unsurprisingly, ASF account for the majority of the institutions’ environmental food footprint...

Eat plants and go electric: how to break food TV’s bad climate habits https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/27/tv-cooking-shows-climate-change-sustainability

From product placement for unnecessary gadgets to meat-centred cooking, TV can make us think unsustainable is normal. When you... pull up a cooking show, chances are you’re just looking for a bit of entertainment... But if what you’re watching is constantly exposing you to images of sizzling steaks, roaring gas flames and all the fanciest new appliances, it might be reinforcing habits or norms that aren’t exactly climate friendly... Unfortunately, what we’re shown on TV is rarely a great guide for how we might begin reducing the climate impacts of food, which accounts for somewhere between 25% and 33% of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions. “Food systems are a vital piece of the climate puzzle... Even if we got rid of fossil fuels today, we would still have to change the way we’re eating.” So how do we change the way we eat?... Eat more plants... switching to a vegan or even just a “climatarian” diet (which excludes beef, lamb and goat, and limits poultry, pork and fish) is one of the most impactful climate actions a person can take...

Psychological biases deter consumers from taking effective action https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-023-00981-z

... lay person sample seemed to underestimate the potential climate benefits of reducing red meat consumption, while experts noted this as one of the most impactful activities, consistent with prior research. This difference points to a knowledge gap and suggests that the general... population might not be aware that a shift to a more plant-based diet is one of the most impactful activities they can engage in at the household level. Estimates suggest that adopting a vegetarian diet could reduce annual per capita emissions by close to 1t of CO2e...

Industry figures behind ‘declaration of scientists’ backing meat eating https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/27/revealed-industry-figures-declaration-scientists-backing-meat-eating

The scientific consensus is that we need rapid meat reduction in the regions that can afford that choice.” Studies in the highest-ranking scientific journals have concluded that cutting meat and dairy consumption in rich countries is the single best way to reduce a person’s impact on the environment and that the climate crisis cannot be beaten without such cuts. People already eat more meat than health guidelines recommend in most developed nations...

Brazil food sector accounts for 74% of emissions https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/brazil-food-sector-accounts-74-emissions-study-2023-10-24/

Food production in Brazil, the world's biggest beef and [feed] soybean exporter, accounted for 74% of the country's greenhouse gas emissions in 2021... Most emissions do not come directly from food production, but deforestation to convert native vegetation into farms and pastures is the main source of carbon released from Brazil into the atmosphere... Of the 1.8 billion tons of greenhouse gases emitted from Brazil in 2021 to make food, nearly 78% was associated with beef production, including emissions linked with deforestation for livestock farming and pollution from beef packing plants... Ranked alongside countries, Brazil's beef industry alone would be the world's seventh-largest greenhouse gas emitter, ahead of major economies such as Japan.

The nature of protein intake as a discriminating factor of diet sustainability https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44872-3

... animal food production is responsible for 56–58% of the emissions generated by food production while providing only 37% of the protein supply. In that regard, the IPCC has strongly recommended to reduce meat consumption by two-thirds, as red meat and processed meat production have been shown to have the highest impact on all dimensions (GHG emissions, land use, water use, acidification and eutrophication). Note that these emissions are double those generated by plant-based foods. Although it has been proven that there is no longer protein gap in Western countries, as protein intake exceeding needs... That being said, the individuals’ dietary patterns seem to be strongly influenced by this debate. Indeed, it has been shown that the overall diet of meat eaters is less healthy than the one of plant-based foods eaters...

Meat taxes can avoid overburdening low-income consumers https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00849-z

Stringent environmental regulation of livestock farming and meat products is notably lacking, despite their contribution to climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation and nitrogen pollution. Recent assessments suggest that the 1.5 °C climate target set out in the Paris Agreement cannot be attained without rapid and ambitious changes to global food systems...

Effect of an app-based dietary intervention on GHG emissions https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-023-01523-0

Dietary change towards a diet low in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) can reduce climate impact and improve individual-level health. However, there is a lack of understanding if diet interventions can achieve low-GHGE diets... future interventions that target reducing meat consumption specifically may have the potential to result in a reduction of individual-level diet-related GHGEs... Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) related to the global food system constitute one third of all anthropogenic emissions, and thus contribute substantially to climate change. Typical Western diets (common across Europe and North America) are characterized by a high intake of animal-based foods, and – due to the large environmental impact of rearing livestock – high diet-related GHGEs. Dietary change has therefore been recognized as an important factor to reduce GHGEs. At the same time, an improvement in diet can also protect against non-communicable diseases and potentially prevent one in every five deaths globally. In recognition of the association between a high intake of red and processed meat with both adverse health and environmental outcomes, the World Health Organization recommends a predominantly plant-based diet as part of a healthy and sustainable lifestyle. Therefore, dietary change towards a low-GHGE diet can contribute to both improved health and environmental outcomes. Diets rich in plant-based foods are suggested not only to reduce GHGEs and to prevent disease, but also to be effective in disease management. For instance, plant-based diets have been found to contribute to effective management of Type 2 diabetes... reduced body weight, and improvements in quality of life and wellbeing... As an additional benefit, a reduction in diet-related GHGEs could also be achieved: since plant-based foods are comparably lower in GHGEs than animal-based foods, a healthy diet that focuses primarily on plant-based foods can be low in GHGEs...

Proposed solutions to anthropogenic climate change https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20544

Humanity is now facing what may be the biggest challenge to its existence: irreversible climate change brought about by human activity... This review highlights one of the most important but overlooked pieces in the puzzle of solving the climate change problem – the gradual shift to a plant-based diet and global phaseout of factory (industrialized animal) farming, the most damaging and prolific form of animal agriculture. The gradual global phaseout of industrialized animal farming can be achieved by increasingly replacing animal meat and other animal products with plant-based products, ending government subsidies for animal-based meat, dairy, and eggs, and initiating taxes on such products. Failure to act will ultimately result in a scenario of irreversible climate change with widespread famine and disease...

Development phases of mainstreaming plant-based in the food sector https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122906

Circa 30–35 % of the human-related greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are emitted in the agriculture and food sector. Production of meat and dairy plays a particularly large role; the climate footprint of these products is typically higher than of plant-based products. Agriculture withdraws 70 % of freshwater and covers 38 % of the land, and as much as 75 % of the agricultural land is used for either growing feed or grazing livestock. Thus, a dietary shift that entails reduction of dairy and meat and increasing the plant-based share of the diet is regarded as one of the most impactful demand-side actions that consumers can take...

Masculinity and veganism https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1244471

Aside from the health aspect, high consumption of meat and animal products is a burden on the environment. For example, globally, 83% of agricultural land is used for animal agriculture, which accounts for around 56-58% of dietary greenhouse gas emissions but only for 37% of the protein and 18% of the caloric requirements...

The global and regional air quality impacts of dietary change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41789-3

Air pollution increases cardiovascular and respiratory-disease risk, and reduces cognitive and physical performance. Food production, especially of animal products, is a major source of methane and ammonia emissions which contribute to air pollution through the formation of particulate matter and ground-level ozone... dietary changes towards more plant-based flexitarian, vegetarian, and vegan diets could lead to meaningful reductions in air pollution with health and economic benefits... we estimated reductions in premature mortality of 108,000-236,000 (3-6%) globally, including 20,000-44,000 (9-21%) in Europe, 14,000-21,000 (12-18%) in North America, and 49,000-121,000 (4-10%) in Eastern Asia. We also estimated greater productivity, increasing economic output by USD 0.6-1.3 trillion (0.5-1.1%)... incentivising dietary changes towards more plant-based diets could be a valuable mitigation strategy for reducing ambient air pollution and the associated health and economic impacts... ... livestock production was responsible for the majority (80–84%) of all food-related ammonia and methane emissions, with animal source foods having 10 to up to 1000 times the emissions footprints of plant-based foods. Dietary changes towards lower consumption of animal source foods therefore substantially reduced agricultural emissions—by 84–86% globally for the adoption of vegan diets...

Carbon literacy and pro-environmental actions https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20634

Lifestyle choices and consumption play a large role in contributing to per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Certain activities, like... diets with animal products... contribute significantly to per capita emissions...

The relative benefits for environmental sustainability of vegan diets https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291791

Environmental impacts of the livestock sector are proportional to consumption levels. To assess the relative consumption of livestock animals within the diets of dogs, cats and people, this study examined their dietary energy needs... Full transition to nutritionally-sound vegan diets would spare from slaughter the following numbers of terrestrial livestock animals annually (billions)... globally: dogs – 6.0, cats – 0.9, humans – 71.3, as well as billions of aquatic animals in all dietary groups. Very large impact reductions were also associated with land and water use, emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), acidifying and eutrophifying gases, and biocide use... If implemented globally, nutritionally-sound vegan diets would free up land larger than the following nations: dogs – Saudi Arabia or Mexico, cats – Japan or Germany, humans – Russia... combined with India. Such diets would save freshwater volumes greater than all renewable freshwater in the following nations: dogs – Denmark, cats – Jordan, humans – Cuba. Such diets would reduce GHGs by amounts greater than all GHG emissions from following nations: dogs – South Africa or the UK, cats – Israel or New Zealand, humans – India or the entire EU. The numbers of additional people who could be fed using food energy savings associated with vegan diets exceeded the 2018 human populations of the following nations: dogs – the entire European Union, cats – France or the UK, humans – every single nation or collective region on Earth... All of these estimates are conservative...

Perspective of a more sustainable meat consumption in Brazil https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03941-3

Meat products are considered the foods with the greatest environmental impact because the whole process (farm(er)s, slaughterhouses and manufacturing processors, customers and consumers) needs plenty of natural resources resulting in severe environmental impact. The livestock sector needs more land, water, and energy resources than the agricultural sector, mainly because cattle are also fed with agricultural products. The slaughtering and meat processing sector impacts the environment either from emissions or consumption of natural resources... meat products refrigeration in customers sector contribute to ozone emissions and global warming. Finally, consumers impact the environment when they cook meats, contributing to GHGE in addition to energy consumption...

Climate goals may be achieved by dietary change https://doi.org/10.1038/s44222-023-00125-6

The production of animal source food, such as meat and dairy, is responsible for the majority of the negative environmental impacts of the global food system... substitution of animal-based food greatly reduces agricultural input use, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss. Animal source food production is linked to global warming, biodiversity loss and wildlife-origin diseases, in addition to concerns about animal welfare... By replacing our meat and dairy consumption with plant-based alternatives, even just partially, we can significantly reduce the environmental impact of the food system, from reduction of agricultural input use, such as water and nitrogen fertilization, to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and saving forests and natural ecosystems... In particular, the substantial reduction in methane emissions, achieved by reducing animal source food production, leads to a decline in agriculture and land use emissions — a key climate change mitigation target...

Consumer views on plant-based foods: Australian sample http://hdl.handle.net/10072/421785

There is abundant evidence demonstrating the harmful impacts of animal agriculture on planetary health. At the same time, plant-forward diets have well-established benefits for both environmental sustainability and human health. There is thus a critical role for both producers and consumers in shifting diets to ensure a healthy and sustainable food future..

School meals: focusing on animal- vs. plant-based protein foods https://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2023.17.5.1028

In response to climate change, worldwide efforts are being made to reduce carbon emissions... A considerable portion of these GHG emissions, in particular, is related to livestock farming and consumption... globally, agriculture-related GHG emissions are dominated by livestock, which is a primary source of methane and nitrous oxide... there are concerns that such a diet, which is primarily animal-based and low in fruits and vegetables, is consistently identified as a major contributor to GHG emissions and an increased risk of obesity and chronic diseases..

Higher N2O emissions from organic compared to synthetic N fertilisers https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108718

Agriculture contributed around 52% to global anthropogenic emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) during 2007–2016 [a greenhouse gas that also depletes the ozone layer], and the annual emission... currently increases... Most of this increase originates from the use of synthetic fertilisers and recycling of livestock manure as organic fertiliser... [But] N2O emissions were significantly higher from organic [slurries, digestates] compared to synthetic fertilisers...

Sustainability of plant-based diets for human and planetary health https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1285161

... animal-based food emits more GHG than plant-based food. Hence, from an environmental perspective, a shift from animal-based to plantbased diets has the potential to contribute significantly to ameliorating the effects of climate change. From a human health perspective, such a shift would align with current dietary guidelines which recommend increased intake of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes and nuts and decreased intake of red meat, sugar and refined grains...

Consumer acceptance of precision fermentation made egg https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1209533

Having risen by nearly 70% since the 1960s, humanity’s consumption of animal protein is becoming an increasingly destabilizing force acting on the planet’s climate, and itself a victim of mounting instability. The impacts of rising temperatures and extreme weather events are already impacting the productivity of the agri-food sector, with economic volatility, exposed global supply chains and the proliferation of animal-borne diseases providing further threats to the stable supply of animal protein. The livestock industry itself drives much of this instability... It is also a leading cause of air and water pollution, deforestation, and water scarcity. Furthermore, the livestock industry is the leading cause of emerging zoonotic diseases... as well as being the leading risk factor for future antibiotic resistance... Though public awareness of the severity of the livestock industry’s negative aspects has grown recently, the critique of our relationship with animals is longstanding, especially from an animal-welfare perspective... As the tools of industrialized, globalized economies blend with humanity’s rapidly growing appetite for animal-based protein, increasingly productive, albeit increasingly demeaning conditions for animals have become the global norm. Hence, there arises a compelling argument for reconsidering our relationship with livestock, diversifying our global protein supply, and heavily reducing our consumption of animal-based proteins...

Scenarios for achieving net negative emissions in the food system https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000181

GHG emissions can be reduced by ~50–70% via worldwide adoption of diets with smaller contributions of animal sourced foods... Our model suggests a similar magnitude of global GHG emissions abatement via the adoption of a flexitarian diet, which is higher in fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts, and lower in red meat, eggs, and starchy vegetables (potatoes) than the current average global diet... if the entire human population adopted a flexitarian diet by 2050, we estimate a reduction in gross GHG emissions of 8.2 Gt CO2eq...

Replacing Animal-Based Products with Plant-Based Alternatives https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3088967

... animal products generally have higher carbon footprints than their vegan counterparts... The overall effect on dietary carbon emissions shows significant reductions, particularly in the meat and meat products category...

Environmental and land use consequences of replacing milk and beef https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138826

The consumption of meat and dairy products raise enormous environmental concerns. Circa 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from the livestock industry originate from beef, milk and pork production. Changing the production and consumption of meat and dairy products is considered to offer an important contribution to achieving the Paris Agreement climate targets, and could reduce the import of soybean meal [for feed] to Europe from countries where it is linked with deforestation... This study confirms that legumes can play an important role in diet transitions towards climate neutrality, especially via substitution of meat (as opposed to dairy) products...

Optimizing sustainable, affordable and healthy diets https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138775

The global food system is failing to appropriately nourish the population and has been identified as a driving force for environmental degradation. Changing current diets to healthier and more sustainable ones is key to decrease the incidence of non-communicable diseases and force changes at the production stage that will release environmental pressure... Compared to current consumption, a SHD [sustainable and healthy diet] in Spain can be more nutritious and reduce cost, GHGe [GHG emissions] , land and blue-water use by 32%, 46%, 27%, and 41%, respectively... From the environmental perspective, the greatest improvements were observed when replacing 100% of meat: 43% decrease in GHGe; 13% decrease in land use; 13% decrease in blue-water use... animal-based products (meat, dairy, and seafood) were the main contributors [to the carbon footprint] and their reduction was key to minimize environmental impact...

The challenges for plant-based meat companies https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138705

An extensive body of literature has recently discussed how the transition from animal-based meat to alternative sources of proteins could help to reduce the environmental impacts of livestock chains, such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Alternative proteins are broadly characterized as being made with ingredients that replace traditional protein sources and have a lower environmental impact... Plant-based meats are produced with vegetable proteins such as soy, pea or wheat to mimic the characteristics of animal meat products. These plant-based products can have 50% less GHG emissions than animal-based food. Moreover, the dietary, nutritional, and health benefits of plant-based meats have also drawn the interest of consumers seeking meat substitutes... plant-based meat consumption may be associated with a lower risk of developing chronic diseases (e.g., heart diseases) and can contribute to greater general well-being among consumers...

Feeding climate and biodiversity goals with novel plant-based alternatives https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40899-2

Despite accounting for less than 20% of the global food energy supply, animal source foods (ASFs) are responsible for the majority of negative impacts on land-use, water use, biodiversity, and greenhouse gas emissions in global food systems... it is becoming clear that encouraging the adoption of low-ASF diets will be an important component in meeting climate change mitigation targets, achieving health and food security objectives worldwide, and keeping natural resource use within planetary boundaries...

What would happen if the world cut meat and milk consumption in half? https://grist.org/agriculture/what-if-the-world-cut-meat-and-milk-consumption-half/

Cows are often described as climate change criminals because of how much planet-warming methane they burp. But there’s another problem with livestock farming that’s even worse for the climate and easier to overlook: To feed the world’s growing appetite for meat, corporations and ranchers are chopping down more forests and trampling more carbon-sequestering grasslands to make room for pastures and fields of hay. Ruminants, like cattle, sheep, and goats, need space to graze, and animal feed needs space to grow. The greenhouse gases unleashed by this deforestation and land degradation mean food systems account for one-third of the world’s human-generated climate pollution. Environmental advocates have long argued that there’s a straightforward solution to this mess: Eat less meat. Convincing more people to become vegetarians is a very effective way to limit emissions... Swapping 50 percent of the world’s beef, chicken, pork, and milk consumption with plant-based alternatives by mid-century could effectively halt the ecological destruction associated with farming...

Towards Sustainable Diets and Food Systems https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24663-0_27

Food systems impact both human and planetary health by providing nutrition but also emitting pollution and using natural resources. The global food system, including agriculture, storage, transportation, processing, packaging, retail, and consumption, has a very large impact on global warming and biodiversity loss. Diets become both healthier and more sustainable as they emphasize plant-based, whole, and seasonal foods, and reduce food waste. Actions for improved sustainability include advising a healthy whole food plant-centric diet and calling for an end to subsidies of foods that are damaging to health and the environment... There are significant challenges facing the sustainability of the food system that threaten both human and planetary health, but they are not insurmountable. There are actionable recommendations that can support a more sustainable food system in the future. Following the food determinants of sustainable diets, consumers should drastically reduce or eliminate meat consumption, eat more seasonal, whole plant foods, and reduce their food waste. If there is any ambiguity regarding what is the more sustainable food choice between alternatives, researchers should use life cycle assessment and complementary methodologies to evaluate them. Price is a major deciding factor for many consumers when choosing food, so eliminating subsidies for unhealthy and unsustainable foods and shifting that to supporting better options would help reduce demand and therefore production of such foods.

The Climate Crisis Could Mean the Twilight of the American West https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/historic-draught-colorado-river-california-nevada-arizona-water-crisis-1234816087/

... anthropologist Wade Davis recalls how the taming of the Colorado River in the 1960s... helped shape the nation. But now facing a historic drought, all that could be lost in a generation... “God created both Nature and Man. Man serves God, but Nature serves Man. To have a deep blue lake, where no lake was before, seems to bring Man a little closer to God”... Like so many of his generation... Dominy believed that any natural resource not used was wealth wasted... Fully 80 percent of the water drawn from the Colorado goes to irrigating some 5.5 million acres, most of which is used to grow alfalfa and grass to feed cattle, and not only in the United States. Alfalfa grown in Arizona is exported by the ton to fatten cattle in Asia and the Middle East... as household wells were running dry with the falling water table, a Saudi agricultural giant was permitted to use deep industrial wells to extract unlimited amounts of groundwater, allowing it to grow alfalfa in one desert to feed dairy cows eight thousand miles away in another desert, in a water-stressed nation that has, for all the right reasons, banned the cultivation of the crop within its own borders. Utah dedicates fully 68 percent of its available water to growing alfalfa, even though livestock generate an insignificant 0.2 percent of the state’s income. In California, it takes 3.2 gallons of water to produce a single almond... If Americans eliminated meat from their diet for just one day each week, it would save a volume of water equivalent to the entire annual flow of the Colorado, which on paper would go a long way to alleviating the crisis. But it would also imply economic losses in the millions, with annual meat consumption nationwide dropping by over 10 billion pounds...

Soil carbon plays a role in the climate impact of diet https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.904570

Diet has a significant impact on the consumer’s climate impact, and a radical global change in the food system is necessary... the more products of animal origin, the more reduction opportunities in the diet...

Disproportionate Beef Consumption among US Adults in an Age of Global Warming https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15173795

In addition to health concerns, excess meat consumption has serious environmental impacts. Numerous studies have documented our collective impact on climate change, with the food sector playing a big role; recent estimates indicate that about one-third of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) are due to human food systems. Meat, particularly from ruminant animals, is at the top of the list of impactful foods. Livestock alone accounts for 14% of global GHGE...

Public policies and vested interests preserve the animal farming status https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.07.013

A transformation of the food system is required to reduce its impact on climate, deforestation, and biodiversity. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the food system, especially livestock production, which is the largest emitter of methane of agricultural origin, must be greatly reduced to avoid the most extreme impacts of climate change. The high warming potential of methane and its short atmospheric lifetime make the reduction of methane emissions an effective climate action with immediate benefits. Livestock production is also the main direct cause of tropical deforestation, mainly due to pasture expansion but also feed crop production, with major impacts on carbon emissions and biodiversity.Diets in affluent countries are rich in animal-derived products. The growing demand for animal products associated with higher incomes in emerging economies poses an additional challenge for the environmental sustainability of the global food system. Numerous studies have demonstrated that dietary changes hold great potential to reduce humanity’s ecological footprint, especially a reduction in red meat consumption...

3D-printed vegan seafood could someday be what’s for dinner https://www.acs.org/pressroom/newsreleases/2023/august/3d-printed-vegan-seafood-could-someday-be-whats-for-dinner-video.html

People around the world eat a lot of seafood, but the oceans are not an infinite resource. Overfishing has depleted many wild fish populations. That lack of sustainability, combined with heavy-metal and microplastic contamination, as well as ethical concerns, have pushed some consumers toward plant-based mimics...

Associations of food motives with red meat and legume consumption https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-023-03231-8

Climate change and global warming are serious threats to people and environment. The whole food system and especially red meat production is a considerable strain on the environment. Consequently, many positive effects on the environment may be achieved by replacing animal-based protein with plant-based protein, such as legumes, in diets. In addition, high red and processed meat consumption has been associated with many adverse health outcomes, whereas legume consumption with positive health outcomes. Sustainable diets have become an important theme in the recently published nutrition recommendations and food-based dietary guidelines...

Towards plantification: contesting and re-placing meaty routines https://doi.org/10.1332/WPKF9257

There is widespread scholarly agreement on the environmental benefits of plant-rich diets... Much attention is now also given to the sustainability and health impacts of meat in public discourse in many countries, and consumers are frequently called upon by environmental organisations, scientists and a range of businesses to reduce their meat consumption to help save the planet... despite the contestation of meat’s sustainability, articulated motivations become entangled with systems of provision and habitual and normalised aspects of food in everyday meat consumption...

Who will encourage a sustainable diet? https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01390-5

Reducing food waste and switching to low-carbon diets are widely recognized as meaningful climate actions. Beyond its climate benefits, a global shift from meat-forward to plant-forward diets can help reduce the negative ecological impacts of land conversion for intensive animal agriculture and reduce the harm to animals and humans associated with meat supply chain… More and more attention is being given to the role of food in combating climate change, with a focus on the benefits of meat reduction and more plant-based diets...

Nitrogen Fluxes in an Agro-Livestock System under Land Use Change https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13081524

In recent decades, significant changes have driven the advancement of agricultural production systems in Brazil. The objective of this study is to analyze the efficiency and transformation of the agricultural production system... through nitrogen input and output flows... between 2010, 2015, and 2020, the use of synthetic fertilizers in the pasture area (natural and cultivated) increased from 2.08 kg N/ha/year to 5.81 kg N/ha/year due to the increase in the area of cultivated pasture and the intensification of synthetic fertilization in this area, aiming for greater pasture productivity for cattle... the need to intensify beef cattle farming... brought an increase in N inputs into the system...

Chickens are taking over the planet https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/8/4/23818952/chicken-meat-forecast-predictions-beef-pork-oecd-fao

... we’ve learned what comes with abundant cheap meat and dairy: air and water pollution, mass deforestation, biodiversity collapse, chronic diseases of affluence, acceleration of climate change, increased pandemic risk, and animal cruelty on an immense scale. If the OECD and FAO are right, the industrial meat machine will continue churning out ever-increasing supplies at precisely the moment when climate authorities say we have to rapidly scale back livestock production to keep the planet habitable...

Plant-Based Drinks and Yogurt Alternatives in Europe https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15153415

Concerns for human and planetary health have led to a shift towards healthier plant-based diets. Plant-based dairy alternatives (PBDA) have experienced exponential market growth due to their lower environmental impact compared to dairy products... The impact of our current food system on human health, the environment, and animal welfare is a significant concern globally. The negative consequences of the current food system include the continued growth of non-communicable and zoonotic diseases, global warming, land use change, biodiversity loss, eutrophication, and excessive withdrawals of freshwater resources for agriculture. To address these issues, the international community is actively working towards creating a more sustainable food system. A key aspect of this effort involves shifting away from the current reliance on beef and dairy cattle agriculture, which is the largest contributor to our diet-related environmental burden. The consensus is to promote diets that include more plant-based foods and less animal-based foods, especially meat and dairy... fortified PBDA can help shift consumers towards more sustainable eating patterns, and their macronutrient profile... is conducive to improved health outcomes…

Can we produce more food with less farming? https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2023/07/31/regenesis-book-farming-environment-george-monbiot/

... arguably the most important and underappreciated aspect of food’s effect on climate: land use. “The climate costs of farming mirror its land costs”... and our central challenge is “to produce more food with less farming.” Greenhouse gases from food are somewhere between a quarter and a third of our annual total, and a quarter of that comes from land-use changes. Historically... the conversion of land in the industrial age has been responsible for 190 billion tons of carbon being released into the atmosphere, compared to 490 billion tons for fossil fuels. Our biggest opportunity to reduce food-related greenhouse gases is to find ways to feed a growing population without expanding food’s land footprint and, ideally, to free up some land to return to its pre-agricultural, carbon-storing state. The biggest user of land, by a country mile, is cattle (with an assist from sheep and goats). Right now, about half of the world’s habitable land is used to feed us, and three-quarters of that is for livestock. Worldwide, 8.2 billion acres are used for grazing, compared to 3.5 billion for crops... re-wilding that land, and switching from animals to plant protein, would be the best way to reduce the carbon impact of our diet. ([For]... managed grazing to sequester carbon... the numbers don’t pan out.) The land-use issue doesn’t end with grazing, though. Cropland doesn’t get a pass. As industrialized agriculture depletes soils and harms the environment, and climate change threatens our ability to grow food, the challenge is to improve environmental outcomes and adapt to changing conditions — without sacrificing yields... But a funny thing happens when you go out in the world talking about the importance of crop yields. You run into people who associate the very idea of yield with the excesses of industrial ag, and who are committed to nonindustrial systems even in the face of a yield penalty... The nonindustrial system discussed most often is, of course, organic. While Monbiot acknowledges its advantages (the farms tend to be more diverse, they use fewer pesticides and antibiotics), the yield penalty is... a dealbreaker. “The global average gap between organic and conventional yields is, according to different estimates, somewhere between 20 percent and 36 percent.” That means you need between 25 and 50 percent more land to grow the same amount of food. Okay, so if organic isn’t the answer, what is? That’s the hard part. Monbiot is absolutely right that a plant-based diet… is a climate win, but “Regenesis” also has supply-side suggestions...

All Hat and No Cattle https://www.monbiot.com/2023/08/02/all-hat-and-no-cattle/

Every industry has its apparatus of justification. The more damaging the industry, the greater the effort spent constructing it. Few if any industries are as damaging as meat production, especially meat production from ruminant animals, such as cattle and sheep. The principal reason is their vast hunger for land. Every hectare of land used for an extractive industry is a hectare than cannot be occupied by wild ecosystems. Cattle and sheep ranching has destroyed more habitat and seized more indigenous people’s land than any other enterprise – and continues to do so. Rainforests, dry forests, wetlands, natural grasslands and savannahs have all been converted on a massive scale to ranchland. Allied to this is the sector’s massive contribution to global heating. This has two main components: the opportunity cost of replacing carbon-rich habitats with carbon-poor ones and the daily emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from the animals and the business of keeping, feeding, transporting, slaughtering and processing them. If we were to ensure that our food system was compatible with a habitable and thriving planet, the first sector we would phase out would be cattle and sheep ranching. Forget the excitable claims of celebrity chefs and food writers: the most damaging of all farm products is pasture-fed meat...

Climate Change at the White House Conference on Hunger https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307312

The link between climate change and the food system is undeniable. By some estimates, food system activities, including food production, distribution, and disposal, produce a third of global GHG emissions caused by humans. As a driver of climate change, the food system contributes to numerous public health threats, including severe weather events, heat-related illness and death, pollution and poor air quality, vector-borne diseases, and water-related illness. At the same time, climate change threatens our ability to provide safe, good-quality food to all. The food system is vulnerable to the short- and long-term effects of climate change, such as severe weather events that cause disruptions to food supply chains. Such disruptions also threaten access to safe drinking water, contributing to water insecurity, which is closely associated with food insecurity. Climate change contributes to undernutrition and diet-related diseases as well. For instance, increased GHG emissions reduce crop yields and the micronutrient content of crops, both of which contribute to food and nutrition insecurity and undernutrition. The disparate effects of diet-related chronic disease, food and nutrition insecurity, and adverse climate events suggest an immediate urgency to promote both sustainable and equitable food and nutrition policies... Agriculture, particularly the production of ruminant meats such as beef, is a major contributor to global GHG emissions; research suggests that we will not meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement without shifting our diets toward lower emission foods. For this reason, the administration’s strategies for healthy food access should incorporate climate considerations. Such policies would be mutually reinforcing because strong evidence indicates that a more sustainable diet is a healthier one. The current Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) encourage diversifying protein intake, increasing fiber intake, and limiting consumption of red and processed meats, all of which are more consistent with a plant-forward (and lower-emission) diet. Most notably, decreasing consumption of red meat, the most carbon-intensive food, while increasing consumption of plant-based foods will prevent and mitigate diet-related chronic diseases and decrease GHG emissions...

True cost accounting of organic and conventional food production https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137134

Agriculture is one of the world's biggest polluters. Consumers are misled towards demand of unsustainable and inadequately priced food products by an insufficient internalization of externalities. Shifting demand towards more sustainable dietary choices can lead to a sustainable transition of agri-food networks. This study assesses environmental damage economically: in a True Cost Accounting case study on 22 agricultural products in Germany, we combine the LCA-based environmental assessment of organically and conventionally produced food products with the internalization of their monetary impacts. We find that on average, crop production generates externalities of about €0.79 per kg for conventional and about €0.42 for organic products. Conventional milk and eggs cause additional costs of about €1.29 per kg on average in organic systems and about €1.10 in organic ones. Conventional and organic meat (beef, pork, poultry) generate externalities of €4.42 and €4.22 per kg, respectively, with beef generating the highest costs of all... [But] the “true prices” (market price + external costs) of organic products are not lower than those of conventional products. The lower agricultural yields in organic systems also contribute to this assessment, as they partially offset the environmental benefits that organic produces have over their conventional counterparts... [However, there is] a strong influence of dietary behavior. Meat- and dairy-based foods lead to considerably higher externalities than plant-based foods, regardless of the production method...

PAN International’s position paper on plant-based meat products https://pan-int.org/plant-based-meat-position-paper/

Plant-based dietary patterns offer the ideal strategy to simultaneously prevent non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and mitigate the effects of the current climate crisis. Plant-based diets include vitamin-rich foods such as fruit and vegetables and protein-rich ones such as legumes, pulses, nuts, and whole grains. It has been estimated that NCDs such as cardiovascular disease and cancer are responsible for 71% of all premature deaths globally. Low consumption of fruit, whole grains, nuts and seeds and vegetables has been identified as the leading dietary risk factor for premature deaths related to NCDs. Therefore, increasing the consumption of these foods is a valuable strategy to improve the population's health. Further, consuming more plant-based foods is a significant strategy in addressing climate change. A large body of evidence shows that, compared to meat and other animal-based products, the production of plant-based foods requires less fresh water and land, emits fewer greenhouse gases and has a reduced impact on biodiversity and the natural environment. For example, the production of 1 kg of beef burgers emits more than 50 times more greenhouse gases than 1 kg of plant-based foods rich in protein such as tofu, beans or peanuts. The greenhouse gas emissions released by the production of fruit, vegetables and grains are also extremely low when compared to animal-based foods. The situation is similar for other indicators of environmental degradation such as land and water use, eutrophication, and biodiversity loss. Encouraging people to choose more plant-based foods and changing food environments so that more healthy plant-based foods become accessible are key actions to effectively improve population health, address climate change, reduce water stress and pollution, restore forests and protect the world’s wildlife. Tackling climate change is particularly important for low and middle-income countries as these are more vulnerable to extreme weather events such as droughts and floods, have fewer resources to invest in adaptation measures, and are heavily dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods.

Insights into the Nitrogen Footprint of food consumption https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165792

The main food contributors to the overall food NF [Nitrogen Footprint] in Spain were cereals, beef, and pork, while the food products oilseeds and oil, fruits, and legumes presented a lower contribution... Intensive agricultural practices deplete the nitrogen (N) available in the soil for the next crop production leading to soil degradation. The application of N mineral fertilizers partially recovers soil fertility. However, the production of N fertilizers requires a large amount of fossil fuel, which increases the N released into the environment... This reactive N can cause an enhanced greenhouse effect, stratospheric ozone depletion, biodiversity loss, smog, and acid rain. Fertilizer production, the combustion of fossil fuels by agricultural activities, and the high energy demands in food production are some causes of the increase in reactive N released into the environment... For animal-based products, the food category eggs and poultry exhibit the lowest VNFs [Virtual Nitrogen Factors]... On the other hand, beef products present the highest VNF, being 75 % higher than the poultry's VNF... the major contributors to the NF… in all the age groups is the food category beef… A common aspect found in all age groups is that animal-source protein (meat) generates the highest N emissions... Special attention should also be paid to food waste in those food products with high N emissions or consumed in high quantities. For example, a small reduction in wasted meat equals a large reduction in wasted N. Finally, it has been seen how diet also plays an important role in food NF… vegan, lacto-ovo vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian, and semi-vegetarian diets achieve a reduction in N released… The studied advantages... concerning carbon footprint and water footprint should also be highlighted… diets in which animal-based products are reduced are beneficial for the environment... Additionally, reducing meat consumption... could result in cost savings for consumers...

Understanding consumption of plant-based alternatives to dairy products https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104947

The current diet with high proportions of animal products contributes significantly to harmful greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately to climate change. A more plant-based diet could counteract this.Thus, a large range of plant-based alternatives to milk and dairy are being developed, and the consumption of these products is increasing. Here, we characterised consumers and non-consumers of plant-based alternatives to milk, yoghurt, and cream, and investigated reasons for and against consumption of these products... These observations have important implications for research and practice, offering a better understanding of the growing group of consumers who use plant-based alternatives for a more sustainable diet...

Climate Change, Industrial Animal Agriculture, and the Role of Physicians https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2023.100260

Global food production is responsible for 35% of all greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) with the use of animals as a source for food, as well as livestock feed, responsible for almost 60% of all food production emissions. Consumption of a high-resource diet based on animal products without a reciprocal nutritional value while degrading the environment and animal and human health is unethical and no longer sustainable. Without a major and urgent transformation in global meat consumption, and even if zero GHGE in all other sectors are achieved, agriculture alone will consume the entire world's carbon budget needed to keep global temperature rise under 2°C by 2050. In this viewpoint, we illustrate the impact our current food-production system has on resource utilization and human and animal health. There is an urgent need to shift to a predominantly plant-based diet to arrest and potentially revert the negative environmental, animal, and human health impact of industrial animal agriculture. Healthcare professionals have the ethical responsibility to provide evidence-based information to patients and their families for their health benefits...

Plant based meat alternative, from cradle to company-gate https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138173

Pulse proteins represent a valuable option in reducing society's dependency on animal meat production and consumption, representing a potential pivot towards sustainable production systems that simultaneously may benefit global health, as pulses are a good source of amino acids, fibres, and minerals. One hundred grams of beef meat can be, in fact, equal to up to 50 kg CO2-equivalents and 164 m2 of land used... Besides the environmental impact, excessive meat consumption has been associated with adverse health effects in Western populations. A change in dietary habits at the population level is then necessary to improve both planetary and, consequently, human well-being and health. Legumes or pulses... can offer a viable alternative in terms of environmental and health benefits. As pulses biologically fix nitrogen through a symbiotic relationship with certain types of rhizobia, they naturally improve the soil structure and fertility, increasing its biomass and, consequently, its biodiversity while at the same time providing valuable protein and micronutrients…

Climate Change Mitigation Potential in Dietary Guidelines https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.07.015

Food systems generate a third (range 25 % to 42 %) of the total human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that accelerate global warming. It is estimated that even in scenarios where all fossil fuel or non-food emissions were net zero, food system emissions alone, if unchanged, would still contribute to exceeding the 1.5 °C limit target of The Paris Agreement. To limit the increase in global temperature to

Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00795-w

All environmental indicators showed a positive association with amounts of animal-based food consumed. Dietary impacts of vegans were 25.1% of high meat-eaters (≥100 g total meat consumed per day) for greenhouse gas emissions, 25.1% for land use, 46.4% for water use, 27.0% for eutrophication and 34.3% for biodiversity. At least 30% differences were found between low and high meat-eaters for most indicators. Despite substantial variation due to where and how food is produced, the relationship between environmental impact and animal-based food consumption is clear and should prompt the reduction of the latter... To feed a growing global population while remaining within proposed safe environmental boundaries for GHG emissions, land use, water use, water pollution and biodiversity loss, we will need changes in diets. Other means to reduce the environmental impact of the food system (for example, technological advances, closing yield gaps, reducing food waste) will not be enough without major dietary change. The environmental impact of animal-based foods is generally higher than for plant-based foods because of both direct processes related to livestock management (for example, methane (CH4) production by ruminants) and indirect processes through the inefficiency of using crops for animal feed rather than directly for human consumption. For this reason, proposed diets for global sustainable food production require most high-income countries to radically reduce consumption of animal-based foods and converge on levels that are higher than currently consumed in many low-income countries. Systematic reviews of modelled dietary scenarios have shown that vegan and vegetarian diets have substantially lower GHG emissions, land use and water use requirements than meat-containing diets and that diets with reduced animal-based foods tend to be healthier and have lower environmental impact… There is a strong relationship between the amount of animal-based foods in a diet and its environmental impact, including GHG emissions, land use, water use, eutrophication and biodiversity. Dietary shifts away from animal-based foods can make a substantial contribution to reduction of the UK environmental footprint. Uncertainty due to region of origin and methods of food production do not obscure these differences between diet groups and should not be a barrier to policy action aimed at reducing animal-based food consumption.

Less meat, more plant-based: The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations https://www.norden.org/en/news/less-meat-more-plant-based-here-are-nordic-nutrition-recommendations-2023

The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023... contain scientific recommendations not just for our health but also for the environment, advocating a more plant-based diet...

A Meatless Diet Is Better for You—And the Planet https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-meatless-diet-is-better-for-you-and-the-planet/

Vegetarian and especially vegan diets can promote better health, help mitigate climate change and reduce inhumane factory farming... meat consumption contributes to climate change though deforestation and methane emissions... animal-based foods contribute twice the emissions of plant-based foods. Switching from the typical Western diet to a vegetarian diet can reduce one’s personal dietary carbon emissions by 30 percent; a strict vegan diet can reduce them by as much as 85 percent...

Personal and Planetary Health—The Connection With Dietary Choices https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.6118

Globally, humanity is confronting the chronic disease burden of poor nutrition while also experiencing the loss of life and property because of climate change. Now is the time to focus on the health benefits of dietary changes. Increasing consumption of animal protein is driving animal agriculture growth. The world now produces more than 3 times the meat and more than double the milk as it did 50 years ago. This has well-established negative effects on the environment, including the destruction of native ecosystems to support livestock grazing and increased cultivation of animal feedstocks. Livestock and its supply chain also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Livestock farming accounts for 50% of methane and 60% of nitrous oxide emissions, which respectively have 25 and 298 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide on a mass basis. Additionally, most nitrogen pollution in wastewater is due to animal-based protein sources and inefficient agricultural practices, which lead to acid rain and toxic algal blooms that cause dead zones of aquatic life...

Removal of processed and unprocessed red meats from menus https://doi.org/10.1002/lim2.87

Processed and unprocessed red meat consumption has a negative impact on both individual and planetary health. Processed meat is classified as a group 1 carcinogen and red meat a group 2a carcinogen by the World Health Organisation. In addition, their consumption is associated with an increased risk of several chronic conditions, including overweight and obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dementia... Healthcare globally contributes around 4%–5% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions... The global food system is also a major contributor to the climate crisis, producing at least a third of GHG emissions, with animal agriculture responsible for more than half these emissions. In addition, animal agriculture is a leading driver of biodiversity loss, land and water pollution, antibiotic resistance and increases the risk of future pandemic infections. A shift to a plant-based food system is now considered essential to meet both climate and nature commitments.

Climate impact of ultra-processed foods https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/19231/

The climate impact associated with food consumption is large. The size of the impact depend on the type of food and how it is produced... the largest contribution of GHG emissions from the Swedish diet comes from foods categorised as unprocessed or minimally processed. The food groups that contributed most to climate impact were ‘Meat & Eggs’ and ‘Dairy’ in unprocessed or minimally processed foods and ‘Meat & Eggs’ and ‘Discretionary foods ’ in ultra-processed foods... the least processed foods contribute more to the climate impact of the Swedish diet than the foods categorised as ultra-processed foods. The NOVA classification [of processed food] is not well aligned with a food science view of what food processing is and not suitable for analysis of climate impact of diets...

The negative impact of vegetarian and vegan labels https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106767

Food systems have an important impact on environmental resources and are globally responsible for a third of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Researchers have shown that given current trends, even if fossil fuel emissions were immediately eliminated the global food system alone would make it impossible to reach the climate goals set in the Paris Agreement. The negative impacts of current food production go beyond GHG emissions, including depletion of freshwater resources, decreasing fertility of land and soil, chemical pollution, and reducing biodiversity. Furthermore, these negative impacts are expected to increase with population growth and a growing appetite for resource-intensive foods—such as meats and dairy. In addition, researchers have projected that improving efficiency will not be enough to reduce the environmental burden of agriculture systems and keep pace with human demand, unless there is a transition to less impactful diets. Similarly, researchers modeling the impact of shifting a city's food system to entirely local production found that changes in diet had far greater impact. The necessary dietary changes... are centered around reducing consumption of meat and other animal products, which are typically more resource-intensive and environmentally impactful to produce than plant-based foods. For example, nearly half of all agricultural production emissions are from ruminant livestock (cattle, sheep, and goats) and a leading driver of deforestation is pastureland expansion. Overall, the production of animal-based foods uses more than 75% of global farmland and contributes more than 56% of food-related emissions, while only contributing 37% of the protein and 18% of the calories in the global food supply. Due to the unsustainable nature of current food systems, the EAT-Lancet Commission proposed shifting diets to reduce consumption of animal-based foods and increase the proportion of plant-based foods consumed. There is growing consensus that such a shift, particularly in affluent societies, would have important environmental benefits, as well as improve food security, animal welfare, and public health...

Land-use-driven biodiversity impacts of diets https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02201-w

Biodiversity impacts and land use for diets decreased with reduced consumption of animal-derived foods, being highest for the current diet and clearly lowest for the vegan diet. The decrease in biodiversity impact was emphasized compared with land use—the impact of the vegan diet was only 30% of the biodiversity impacts of the current diet, while for land use it was about 50%. In the current diet, meats and dairy products made the greatest contribution to land use and dietary biodiversity impact regardless of the assessment method...

We are gambling with the future of our planet for the sake of hamburgers https://theconversation.com/we-are-gambling-with-the-future-of-our-planet-for-the-sake-of-hamburgers-peter-singer-on-climate-change-207605

Today... the fact that eating plants will reduce your greenhouse gas emissions is one of the most important and influential reasons for cutting down on animal products and, for those willing to go all the way, becoming vegan... With beef, for example, transport is only 0.5% of total emissions. So if you eat local beef you will still be responsible for 99.5% of the greenhouse gas emissions your food would have caused if you had eaten beef transported a long distance. On the other hand, if you choose peas you will be responsible for only about 2% of the greenhouse gas emissions... And although beef is the worst food for emitting greenhouse gases, a broader study of the carbon footprints of food across the European Union showed that meat, dairy and eggs accounted for 83% of emissions, and transport for only 6%. More generally, plant foods typically have far lower greenhouse gas emissions than any animal foods, whether we are comparing equivalent quantities of calories or of protein. Beef, for example, emits 192 times as much carbon dioxide equivalent per gram of protein as nuts, and while these are at the extremes of the protein foods, eggs, the animal food with the lowest emissions per gram of protein, still has, per gram of protein, more than twice the emissions of tofu. Animal foods do even more poorly when compared with plant foods in terms of calories produced. Beef emits 520 times as much per calorie as nuts, and eggs, again the best-performing animal product, emit five times as much per calorie as potatoes. Favourable as these figures are to plant foods, they leave out something that tilts the balance even more strongly against animal foods in the effort to avoid catastrophic climate change: the “carbon opportunity cost” of the vast area of land used for grazing animals and the smaller, but still very large, area used to grow crops that are then fed — wastefully, as we have seen — to confined animals. Because we use this land for animals we eat, it cannot be used to restore native ecosystems, including forests, which would safely remove huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. One study has found that a shift to plant-based eating would free up so much land for this purpose that seizing the opportunity would give us a 66% probability of achieving something that most observers believe we have missed our chance of achieving: limiting warming to 1.5℃. Another study has suggested that a rapid phaseout of animal agriculture would enable us to stabilise greenhouse gases for the next 30 years and offset more than two-thirds of all carbon dioxide emissions this century... Climate change is undoubtedly the biggest environmental issue facing us today, but it is not the only one. If we look at environmental issues more broadly, we find further reasons for preferring a plant-based diet. The clearing and burning of the Amazon rainforest means not only the release of carbon from the trees and other vegetation into the atmosphere, but also the likely extinction of many plant and animal species that are still unrecorded. This destruction is driven largely by the prodigious appetite of the affluent nations for meat, which makes it more profitable to clear the forest than to preserve it for the indigenous people living there, establish an ecotourism industry, protect the area’s biodiversity, or keep the carbon locked up in the forest... A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions... Really it is animal products that are responsible for so much of this. Avoiding consumption of animal products delivers far better environmental benefits than trying to purchase sustainable meat and dairy. Those who claim to care about the wellbeing of human beings and the preservation of our climate and our environment should become vegans for those reasons alone. Doing so would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of pollution, save water and energy, free vast tracts of land for reforestation, and eliminate the most significant incentive for clearing the Amazon and other forests.

Appeals to Encourage Sustainable Food Choice https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/eqkpv

Livestock production contributes to climate change, environmental degradation, and freshwater scarcity. Excessive consumption of animal-sourced foods (ASF; broadly categorized as meat, fish, eggs, and dairy) in developed countries is also associated with a variety of health and ethical concerns. Shifting ASF-heavy diets to include moreplant-sourced foods (PSF; mainly whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, and nuts and seeds) has been identified as an important lever to address these issues...

How to best reshape diets to be healthier https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137600

A reduction of environmental pressures and the revision of food systems is essential in our response to climate change. Livestock farming, particularly of ruminants, is a well-documented and significant contributor to food-related greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe). Furthermore, food products associated with marked increases in disease risks – red and processed meats – are often associated with the most damaging environmental impacts that go beyond the potential ecosystem services offered by some livestock systems. Consistent evidence in the scientific literature, including systematic reviews, has indicated that a dietary pattern containing more plant-based foods (e.g., fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, whole grain products) and less animal-based foods (especially red meat and dairy products) and total energy is both healthier and associated with lower pressures on the environment and natural resources.

Relational climate and openness to plant-forward diets https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106617

There is a growing concern that modern-day animal agriculture bears health and ecological costs that cannot be sustained. The production and consumption of industrially reared animal foods has been linked to a number of personal and public health consequences (e.g., the emergence and spread of zoonotic diseases), and a disproportionate share of food-related environmental impacts. In contrast, plant-forward diets offer a potential solution to many of the health and ecological crises that society faces, and that we can expect to face in the near future. Nonetheless, the consumption of animal foods remains a socially normative practice. It is estimated that approximately 73% of the global population maintain an omnivorous diet, consuming on average 43 kg of meat each year...

Low-carbon diets can reduce global ecological and health costs https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00749-2

Potential external cost savings associated with the reduction of animal-sourced foods remain poorly understood. Here we combine life cycle assessment principles and monetarization factors to estimate the monetary worth of damage to human health and ecosystems caused by the environmental impacts of food production. We find that, globally, approximately US$2 of production-related external costs were embedded in every dollar of food expenditure in 2018—corresponding to US$14.0 trillion of externalities. A dietary shift away from animal-sourced foods could greatly reduce these ‘hidden’ costs, saving up to US$7.3 trillion worth of production-related health burden and ecosystem degradation while curbing carbon emissions. By comparing the health effects of dietary change from the consumption versus the production of food, we also show that omitting the latter means underestimating the benefits of more plant-based diets. Our analysis reveals the substantial potential of dietary change, particularly in high and upper-middle-income countries, to deliver socio-economic benefits while mitigating climate change.

Continued from: Avoiding meat and dairy in one’s diet is indeed the biggest way to reduce one’s impact on the environment https://ajstein.tumblr.com/post/174828704325/

Compilation of the scientific literature since June 2018 (and before).

3 notes · View notes