Swapping out just a third of our meat consumption to plant intakes could provide an enormous number of planetary benefits, according to a new report.
The report was by research consultancy Profundo and commissioned by environmental group Madre Brava shows.
According to the report, countries where consumption of meat is above recommended levels – include United States and Canada, Australia, China, Argentina and Brazil., and the European Union plus the United Kingdom – all areas excluding, all of Asia (except China), and parts of Latin America.
In these countries, it estimates, ‘substituting 30 per cent of beef, pork and chicken with a mix of whole foods and novel plant-based meat products could lead to net savings of 728 million tonnes of CO2e a year;.’
“This is equivalent to offsetting almost all emissions from global air travel in 2022,” says the reports.
“Moreover, the shift would free up 3.4 million sq. km of farmland, an area the size of India, land that can be returned to nature to boost biodiversity and absorb carbon emissions.
ADVERTISEMENT
Switching just 30% of meat currently consumed to plant-based proteins would have vast environmental benefits. Image © Madre Brava
Meat consumption
In a statement sent to Vegan Food & Living, Nico Muzi, managing director of Madre Brava, said: “In the current context of the triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and water scarcity, the benefits of a modest switch to plant proteins are huge.
“The current food system incentivizes producing and selling huge amounts of industrial meat, rather than more sustainable, healthier proteins.
“We need to turn the tide for our health and the health of our planet. Governments and food retailers can play a critical role in ensuring that sustainable proteins are the cheapest, easiest choice for consumers when doing their food shop.”
There would also be benefits in terms of animal impact: if meat consumption fell by 30 per cent, this would save the lives of 100 million cows, 420 million pigs and over 22 billion chickens per year.
This is equivalent to sparing all the cows alive today in the United States.
Furthermore, there would be huge savings in the amount of land used by agriculture: as the report says ‘plant protein production, in general, uses a tiny fraction of land compared to animal meat production, thus drastically reducing deforestation and protecting biodiversity’.
It adds: “Moreover, plant protein production uses a lot less water, causes less water and air pollution, eliminates the risks of antibiotic resistance and zoonotic pandemics and lowers public health burdens associated with red meat consumption.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Plant proteins are better for the health of humans and the planet, not to mention the animals. Photo © Mariia Sydorenko via Getty Images
Growing consumption of meat
The report notes that red meat overconsumption is highest in North America, Europe and South America, and the projected shift to plant proteins modelled by Profundo ‘applies only to the regions of the world with meat consumption above that’.
It reports that: “The projected shift to plant proteins modelled by Profundo applies only to the regions of the world with meat consumption above that recommended by widely accepted health and science assessments.
“For instance, Americans and Canadians eat six times as much red meat as recommended by leading health scientists and nutritionists at EAT-Lancet, while EU and UK citizens as well as Argentinians and Brazilians eat four times as much.
“Thus, the 30 per cent switch from meat to plant alternatives is moderate as people will still be able to eat more red meat than recommended by health experts.”
Consumption around the globe has increased massively in decades, distinct by region. For example: “More than 100 kilograms (kg) per person per year in countries like the United States, Australia, Argentina, and Brazil; an average of 75kg in the EU and the UK; and less than 5 kg in India, Bangladesh or Burundi.”
The report therefore notes that the projective shift ‘applies only to the regions of the world with meat consumption above that recommended by widely accepted health and science assessments’.
In other words: “For instance, Americans and Canadians eat six times as much red meat as recommended by leading health scientists and nutritionists at EAT-Lancet, while EU and UK citizens as well as Argentinians and Brazilians eat four times as much.
“Thus, the 30 per cent switch from meat to plant alternatives is moderate as people will still be able to eat more red meat than recommended by health experts.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Even after a 30% reduction in meat consumptions, some areas would still be far above a healthy intake level. Image © Madre Brava
Hitting global goals by cutting meat intake
When it comes to the climate, scientists agree that ‘the only way that we stand to achieve Paris goals is if we drastically reduce the production and consumption of industrial meat’.
So far, efforts has been based on ‘improving the efficiency of production to reduce the emissions intensity of livestock products…such as changing the enteric fermentation process in ruminant animals that produce methane, a super climate-warming gas…they are not enough to align food systems with Paris goals’.
According to Nico Muzi: “Even the most optimistic estimates of emissions reductions from intensification and efficiency measures are not enough to bring protein production in line with climate goals.
“As such, structural solutions focused on making sustainable proteins the cheapest, easiest choice for consumers are critical.”
These solutions could come in the form of meat-free strategies. For example, Meat-free Mondays…and Tuesdays?.
“If EU and UK citizens decide to go meat-free for two days a week, it could have huge benefits for the health of our planet, according to the Profundo research,’ says the report.
“Making Mondays and Tuesdays meat-less in the UK and the EU and replacing it with a mix of whole vegetable proteins and novel plant-based meat could save 81 million tonnes of CO2e.
“This is equivalent to removing almost one quarter (65 million) of all cars from EU and UK roads today.”
This could also have immense impacts on freeing up water, ‘freeing up an area bigger than the entire United Kingdom (270,000 sq km) and save 2.2 cubic km of water – or 880,000 swimming pools worth of water each year’.
In addition to policies pushing two meat-free days a weeks, as Europeans eat on average 1.4kg of meat per week, which is 80 per cent more than the world’s average, industrial animal agriculture plays an outsized role in driving emissions in the EU food sector.
“Over a third (36 per cent) of emissions linked to consumption in the EU come from food, with animal products accounting for 70 per cent of that impact. Moreover, meat and dairy production are the single largest source of methane emissions in the EU – the type of emissions with the most immediate and concentrated impact on climate change.”
Nico Muzi said: “Europeans consume four times more meat than recommended for having a balanced, healthy diet.
“Going meat-free two days a week will have huge environmental benefits while Europeans will still be able to eat more meat than recommended.
“A moderate shift to plant-based foods is not only good for our health but also good for the health of our planet.”
A switch to plant-based farming could produce more food on the same amount of land. Image © Madre Brava
Land efficiency
Another major efficiency when it comes to consuming less meat is land use when it comes to producing food.
According to the report: “The world can produce 14 times more protein on the same area of land simply by switching from meat to plant alternatives.”
It notes that ‘humanity can produce 14 times more protein on the same amount of land by switching from meat to plant proteins helping to feed a growing world population in 2030.
According to research by consultancy Profundo for environmental group Madre Brava to come this conclusion: “Profundo modelled two competing uses for farmland to produce proteins: the production of beef or the production of a mix of plant proteins: beans, oats, peas and soybeans.
“The new report estimated that the same area of land can yield enough beef to satisfy the protein needs of two percent of the world’s population in 2030, or alternatively could produce enough protein crops to satisfy the protein needs of 28 per cent of the global population in 2030.”
It notes that given some land for rearing cattle is unsuitable for crop production, ‘the shift from beef to plant proteins could additionally liberate 1.3 million sq km’.
“This is an area the size of France, Germany and Italy combined that can be returned to nature to absorb carbon and boost biodiversity.”
The report concludes: “Meat is a very inefficient way of producing cheap unsustainable proteins for a growing world population.
“For food security reasons, world leaders should be looking at boosting the production of protein crops and reducing the production of beef.”
Keen to understand more about the impact of meat on the planet? Find out why people should ‘eat as little animal products as possible’ to fight climate change, according to scientists
Featured image © Liliya Filakhtova via Getty Images
