« How bad is the economic downturn? | Main | Coal verses Nuclear »

Low Impact Food

So here's another sustainability bottom line: the prospect of 120 billion animals for human consumption is no more sustainable than the prospect of 9 billion human beings. The two numbers are connected of course: more humans, more meat consumption. More better-off humans, much more meat consumption – with a few exceptions like India.

There are 60 billion animals in the world today, a number which the Food and Agriculture Organisation reckons will double by 2050 simply because of increased demand. The combined impact of these animals is already massive, accounting for 18% of total global warming effect, for a third of the world’s arable land, for worsening levels of water and air pollution, and for equally massive impacts on human health. And that’s before one begins to think about these things from animal welfare perspective.

A sustainable world will, therefore, be a world in which less meat is consumed – especially in countries like ours, which already eats too much of it. I have not met anyone who can refute the logic of that – especially if you subscribe (as our Government does) to the notion that we should only be increasing food supply "in a way that does not degrade the natural resources on which farming and food production ultimately depend." Rest assured that going from 60 to 120 billion animals will systematically screw those resources for good and all.

But logic can be a wretched thing when it comes to taking your electorate with you. The Cabinet Office's recently published 'Food Matters' recognised that dilemma, and seeks all sorts of different ways of finessing it. For instance, it proposes a new "Healthier Food Mark" to promote healthier, "low-impact" food in the public sector – without quite spelling out that low-impact must (presumably?) mean less meat-intensive.

Good idea, but if it's promoted with the same laissez-faire spinelessness as the current Public Sector Food Procurement initiative, it will achieve precisely nothing. Hence the excellent recommendation from the Green Alliance (in its timely and very accessible new paper "Cutting Our Carbs: Food and the Environment") that the Government should make compliance with the Healthier Food Mark compulsory for all public sector bodies by 2012. For once, this would mean leading by example and by clear, unambiguous regulation.

And if you're still uncertain why that would be such a good thing, do please check out Compassion in World Farming’s website for details of its brilliant 'Eat Less Meat' campaign.

PS By the way, I am keen to round out my troika of inherently unsustainable numbers (ie 9 billion humans, 120 billion animals) by investigating the number of pets in the world today – and exactly how fast that number is growing, with what sort of impacts on food supplies and the environment. Does anybody know where I might unearth that kind of data?

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on August 7, 2008 11:56 AM |

Comments (4)

I'm so glad that there is finally someone in your position bold enough to support a campaign asking consumers to eat less meat. Thank you thank you thank you.

I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression that most (pet) animal feed is primarily derived from waste products of the meat industry and rejected/unpopular grain crops? Can somebody please correct me? Livestock feed is another matter entirely.

RE number of pets data: The various SPCAs around the world may hold data like that. I'm sure you could get figures for countries with a well established SPCA. Try starting at the RSPCA?

Posted by Emily Durrant | August 8, 2008 9:39 AM

There are benefits to livestock systems including the well groomed upland labdscapes and national parks we love. These are sculpted by livestock. I admit, the issue of intensive production is to be questioned when the over consumption of livestock products has clear health impacts and so on.

Pets, are interesting and a trawl through publically reported turnover of major pet food groups will give you an idea of the scale of pet ownership (and how it grows with increased affluence). It is a multibillion dollar industry that often escapes environmental scrutiny, because we love our pets. The business is essentially related to food for human consumption since small grains, soy protein, animal coproduct all end up in pet foods. Bottom line is there is very little difference, both are a processing and manufacturing process dependent on the farm.

Posted by Wayne | August 9, 2008 12:57 PM

A very apt article indeed.

The problem with meat industry is not just about the land and water resources that go into raising the livestock. There are a lot of energy resources that are spent to operate slaughterhouses as well as transporting animals to and from the same.

People today need to realize that there's no point sitting on their a**es and cribbing about price hikes, but to actually adjust consumption patterns of certain goods according to availability.

Posted by Jashua Gupta | August 10, 2008 10:42 PM

Jonathan, if the information you need isn't readily available get the SDC to lean on 'someone'. Those are the sort of hard facts that just might get 'people' to address an issue of this magnitude.

Key:

"Someone" - UK Government; EU; agri-business; etc.

"People" - UK Government; EU; agri-business; supermarket chains; consumers; etc.

Posted by Ironspider | August 12, 2008 10:30 AM

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)





TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/jpblog/mt-tb.cgi/69

Subscribe to this blog's feed
[What is this?]