Catherine Conlon: Here is the evidence for cutting back on meat

“It will not be easy and I encourage our farmers to continue on the path to change. Transcending difficulties by designing alternatives.”

His comments came under robust criticism from Kerry TD Danny Healy Rae who suggested that the president was overstepping his role by getting involved in the climate action debate. “It’s fine for him writing poetry, hardworking people need meat,” Mr Healy Rae said.

New figures from Our World in Data released last week quantify the scale and impact of human meat consumption — 360m tonnes of meat every year. 

This amounts to the slaughter of 900,000 cows and 202m chickens every day — that’s 140,000 chickens slaughtered every minute. The count for fish is less certain but it involves hundreds of millions of fish killed every day.

Food Explorer data reveals data per capita for countries globally.

In Ireland, 19.79kg of beef per capita was available for consumption in 2020 compared to a global average of 8.98kg per capita in the same year.

In 2021, Ireland slaughtered 20.02 chickens per capita compared to a global average of 9.3 per capita.

— Max Roser (@MaxCRoser) September 26, 2023

The study also explored the benefits to reducing our meat consumption. Extensive evidence points to agriculture land use as the main driver of biodiversity loss. 

Today, almost half the world’s land that is free of ice and desert is used for agriculture, and most of this land is used by livestock. The total of land used for livestock (in the form of grazing land or cropland used for animal feed) covers an area as large as the whole of the Americas — from Ellesmere Island in Canada’s far north to Cape Horn on the southernmost tip of South America.

Land use and emissions

Research published by Our World in Data in 2021 showed that if we did not eat meat, it would be possible to reduce agricultural land from 4bn to 1bn hectares. This would have benefits for animals globally as wilderness could regrow to provide habitats for wildlife.

This evidence was compounded by a new study in Nature Communications, published last month, that found that cutting in half the amount of pork, beef, chicken, and milk that humanityconsumes would halt net deforestation and other loss of natural lands almost entirely and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from land use by nearly a third (31%).

Antibiotic resistance

Reducing meat consumption globally would decrease the use of antibiotics in livestock farming. 

Antibiotic use is a significant contributory factor to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and reductions in the efficacy of antibiotics in their ability to treat infectious disease.

Pandemics

Many infectious diseases originate in other animals. Animals packed closely together in meat production facilities creates a hotbed for the spread and mutation of pathogens. A concerted reduction in global meat consumption would significantly reduce the risk of another global pandemic emerging in the coming decades.

Animal suffering

This is another factor that must be considered. In a world where cows are isolated from their calves to divert their milk to humans, pigs are held in cramped and stressful conditions, chickens are de-beaked, and other animals castrated without anaesthetics — isn’t it time we considered animals as sentient beings?

Is a reduction in the cultural acceptance of meat consumption likely in the near future — when the massive impact on climate, biodiversity and human health becomes increasingly clear?

Dietary guidelines

A key factor in this cultural acceptance is the role of dietary guidelines. A recent tweet from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advocating less red meat consumption was removed following objections from the Irish Farmers’ Association that reducing red meat consumption was not in line with Government dietary guidelines. 

The tweet urged consumers to “try veggie recipes” and “reduce your red meat consumption slowly: veggie lunches, Meat Free Mondays etc”.

The tweet also noted that a tenth of meat is thrown out.

The suggestion raised concerns, in the midst of a climate and biodiversity crisis, whether national dietary guidelines should be reviewed to reflect the environmental and climate impact of food. Government recommendations on healthy eating and a balanced diet are defined by healthy eating guidelines. 

The food pyramid shows the different food groups and how much of each is needed for a healthy balanced diet. Food is organised onto five main shelves with advice on how much to eat from each shelf a day. The advice ranges from the bottom shelf of vegetables salads and fruit (5-7 servings), starchy foods (3-5 servings), dairy (3 servings), meat and alternatives (2 servings) to the top shelf of fats, spreads, and oils (small amounts).

The food pyramids promoted by the HSE show the different food groups and how much of each is needed for a healthy balanced diet. Picture: HSE.ie

There is little reference to the environmental impact of food or the impact of ultra-processed food (UPF) on health.

Research on building sustainability into dietary guidelines was conducted by Safefood in 2021.

The research looked at what is happening in other countries; attitudes and behaviour of consumers; opinions of a multidisciplinary team of experts on what a climate-friendly diet should look like, as well as focus group discussions to consider potential challenges. A review of the evidence highlighted that key challenges include structural barriers, awareness and scepticism around the evidence of the impact of food on climate, and the perceived minor role of individual behaviour in the global context of climate change.

There is also poor understanding of which foods carry the heaviest environmental burden and an overestimation of the impact of ‘food miles’ over the environmental impact of specific foods such as meat, dairy and fish.

Almost half of all respondents were not interested in eating less animal-based foods although a fifth said they had started to reduce their consumption of red and processed meat “some of the time”.

In August, the EPA deleted this tweet  advocating less red meat consumption. Picture: X/EPAIreland

An investigation into the views of an expert panel — comprising health, environmental, social, political, and economic disciplines — found divergence of opinion around guidelines that advised reducing the reliance on animal-based foods and the promotion of plant-based foods.

The expert group recommended further qualitative research involving multidisciplinary experts prior to the development of sustainable dietary guidelines.

“Such research may limit future conflicts and facilitate unified and well-supported public messaging, reducing consumer confusion and encouraging more sustainable diets,” the report added.

Norway has gone one step further by building sustainability into dietary guidelines. New guidelines published in June add climate to the menu. The guidelines advocate a predominantly plant-based approach, emphasising an increased intake of vegetables, fruits, legumes, and wholegrains.

“Animal product consumption should be limited with a recommended maximum intake of 350g of meat per week. Likewise, the consumption of milk products, alcohol, and highly-processed foods should be moderated.”

The impact of food production on climate, biodiversity, and human health points to the need for urgent reframing of national dietary guidelines, underpinned by the evidence of an escalating climate crisis and unprecedented ecological collapse.

Catherine Conlon is a public health doctor and former director of human health and nutrition with Safefood.