Jo Biggs |
The campaign was the brainchild of Riverford founder Guy
Watson. As a producer of organic vegetables, he may appear far removed from the
issues affecting the meat industry. However, as a meat eater himself and with
relatives involved in livestock farming, he’s keen to explore the issues around
meat production and discuss ways of finding the right balance in the diet.
Sitting on the panel alongside Guy was Tim Lang, Professor
of Food Policy at London’s City University, and Peter Melchett, Policy Director
for the Soil Association, both of whom have strong views on commercial
livestock farming and choose not to eat meat themselves. We were given the opportunity of having an AHDB Beef & Lamb representative on the panel, but unfortunately the invitation came at too short notice for the right person to attend.
It was evident from the outset that all three panellists and
the vast majority of the audience were in favour of reducing meat in the diet.
As a result, it was clear that the debate, which was ably chaired by the Daily Telegraph’s food columnist Xanthe Clay, was going to focus on how much we
should reduce our meat consumption rather than whether such a move is
necessary.
With a focus on sustainability and the environmental impact
of meat consumption, the discussion was intelligent, lively and wide-ranging,
however for me it failed to answer several big questions. While there was broad agreement from the panel that we
should be eating less meat and replacing it in our diets with fruit,
vegetables, nuts and seeds, there was little discussion about how the UK can
produce enough of these foods to feed a growing population.
We know that a significant proportion of our agricultural
land, particularly in upland areas, can only be productive if we use it for
grazing livestock. There was much enthusiasm during the debate about the
benefits of rewilding swathes of the countryside that are currently used to
graze cattle and sheep, however taking this land out of food production will
only lead to an increasing reliance on imported food, a consequence which would
be counter-productive in terms of our environmental footprint.
![]() |
The How Much Meat debate panel |
Another point that is often overlooked and is little
understood is the issue of carbon sequestration. While the potential of
grassland to store carbon is acknowledged and was touched upon at the debate,
quantifying this and other benefits, such as the contribution of the livestock
sector to enhancing biodiversity, is very difficult.
With it often being quoted that the level of emissions
generated by the global livestock sector is equal or higher than that generated
by the transport industry (although this comparison, made in the FAO’s
Livestock’s Long Shadow report, has since been discredited), having robust
figures to defend the livestock sector is essential. This was touched upon by
the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Beef and Lamb in its 2013 report looking at the carbon footprint of the beef and sheep sector. The area of soil
carbon storage is also being addressed by work being undertaken by AHDB
Beef & Lamb as a supplement to the 2011 Landscapes without Livestock report.
When you scratch the surface, what becomes clear is
that the “eat less meat to save the planet” message is too simplistic to be
credible given that we are not yet fully able to quantify the carbon footprint
of beef and lamb. Only with more research in this area leading to robust
scientific evidence and data will we be in a position to provide a true account
of the environmental impact of red meat. In the meantime, the industry will
continue to work towards reducing its impact right along the supply chain.
Watch the How Much Meat debate online here.
Watch the How Much Meat debate online here.