The controversy behind meat

---

As the new year and holiday celebrations are approaching, is it time to reduce our meat consumption?

The controversy

Meat has been part of the human diet and a staple of human consumption as it provides nutrients and benefits that the body needs to survive. Nevertheless, the need to eat meat regularly becomes unsustainable as time progresses. Since 1960, meat consumption has increased, mostly in high income nations, and a report points out that meat demand has risen to 204% — or as high as 500%. In fact, the top twenty industrialised nations have the highest meat consumption globally. In the past 50 years, meat consumption has doubled. In 2014, it is estimated that a person consumed 43 kg over the course of the year, compared to 23 kg in 1961. In terms of environmental impact, empirical and scientific studies reveal that meat consumption is one of the leading causes of climate change.

The increase of 1 °C in the global temperature since the industrial era is due to anthropogenic activities. In addressing the climate crisis, tackling meat consumption is imperative because livestock production alone contributes significantly to global warming. Livestock production accounts for a third of human-caused methane emissions and between 12% to 18% of global greenhouse emissions. What is alarming is that methane is stronger than carbon dioxide.

Additionally, animal farming operates on more than a third of Earth’s land, leading to biodiversity loss, deforestation, and water scarcity worldwide. As the demand for meat increases, more land is needed for cows to graze on. Consequently, meat consumption is the leading cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss. The land cleared by deforestation—and the vast majority of the world’s cropland—is used to grow corn and soy to feed livestock.

Meat production has a massive water footprint and is the leading cause of global biodiversity loss. The proliferation and expansion of land required for agriculture and pastures lead to the destruction of the natural habitat of native species, particularly in Latin America and Southeast Asia. Also, numerous aquatic species are affected negatively, which can be traced back to the excessive fertilisation of crops. People consume meat for various reasons like fulfilling their nutritional needs and cultural reasons. Therefore, human meat consumption is a controversial environmental issue that is often neglected in the climate change discussion.

The solution

Reducing one’s meat consumption and/or transitioning to a vegetarian or vegan diet are some ways to reduce one’s personal environmental footprint. To address this issue on a global scale, the creation of strong legislation and government control can help reduce the carbon and methane emissions related to livestock and associated industries. Governments should address the system rather than individuals with policies that establish regulation of livestock production and the food industry as a whole.

Drastically reducing our overall meat consumption globally would provoke positive changes even if this policy prompts backlash. Many people regard meat as an important part of their diet and culture, so expecting them to reduce meat consumption is not realistic. After all, this is not an ethical option as it violates people’s freedom at the cost of the environment. A meat-free diet is also not possible as some people need meat to survive daily. Additionally, in some places of the world, like in the Arctic, people rely on meat to meet their nutrient intake, and plant-based crops cannot survive in these places.

Policies that reduce meat consumption can also affect people’s livelihood in livestock production, particularly in farming-dependent countries. This type of policy emulates the adverse effects of cod fishing moratorium in Atlantic Canada that resulted in mass unemployment and unexpected intra-migration of the Maritimes to find subsistence.

Therefore, instead of focusing solutions on people’s diets, the government must focus on how they can tax and regulate the industry. A long term equitable solution will address the big scale impacts that come from the billion-dollar industry, not individuals.