Tag Archives: environment

“Bet you’d love a bacon sandwich”

One of the clichéd comments that get thrown at vegans (and vegetarians) is the idea that we yearn to eat bacon, that euphemism for the flesh of a pig.  Even if sourced locally from one of those rare ‘free range’ pig farms, a young pig has to be slaughtered to provide that unnecessary source of nutrition known as bacon.  It’s also classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) by the World Health Organisation.  

Sentient Media recently published a story about an advertising campaign by the world’s biggest pig-flesh exporter, Danish Crown.   This campaign is being challenged as greenwash; a misleading, unsubstantiated and/or irrelevant statement or claim that a product, service or company has a low impact on the environment.  In this case, the advertising campaign is an attempt to overcome the growth in public concern about the links between meat consumption and climate change.

Here’s a link to the story.  Before you read it, bear in mind that most of the pigs that end up being slaughtered for food will have come from factory farms. Viva’s film Hogwood shows the kind of conditions that pigs have to suffer in British factory farms.  Also consider the fact that a significant portion of the feed for pigs and chickens in this country is soya beans grown in South America. This has been linked with deforestation of the Amazon and forest fires.  As for the greenhouse gas emissions associated with eating a pig’s flesh compared with other foods, the graph below is derived from peer-reviewed academic research. Whilst pig flesh is not the biggest per kilogram contributor to climate change, it’s around four times worse than tofu and nearly 29 times worse than nuts.

Chart of greenhouse gas emissions of food product, where beef is by far the highest
Chart showing how beef is by far the food product responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions. Source: OurWorldInData.org

Featured image: Sentient Media

Inspiring interview with authors of new book: ‘Rethinking Food and Agriculture’

Watch an inspiring interview hosted by the Vegan Organic Network

Rethinking Food and Agriculture, New Ways Forward. Dr Laila Kassam and Tony Martin

The book ‘Rethinking Food and Agriculture is edited by Laila Kassam (Animal Think Tank) and Amir Kassam (University of Reading) with chapters from a range of academics and activists.  The book highlights the urgent need to ‘rethink’ the food and agriculture system and highlights ‘new ways forward’, including alternative paradigms of agriculture, human nutrition and political economy that are more ethical, sustainable and just.  Contributors include Robert Chambers, David Jenkins, Tony Juniper, Dr. Shireen Kassam, David Montgomery, Vandana Shiva and many others.  It’s a wonderful contribution to the science and philosophy supporting the urgent need to transition to a non-violent vegan food system and restore a right relationship with ourselves, other species and nature.

The book outlines how the multiple health, climate and biodiversity crises we are facing are deeply interconnected and that these interconnections need to be better understood for meaningful system-wide transformation to be possible. In order to understand these interconnections the book explores the different stages in the food system from farm to retail and the different participants in the food system including farmers and their communities, civil society groups, social movements, development experts, scientists, and other food system actors who have been raising awareness of these issues and implementing more sustainable and just food system solutions. 

The book also undertakes a deep exploration of the underlying beliefs, values, ethics and motivations, which drive the global capitalist economic system including the food system.  The authors comment that, “injustice toward and suffering of humans, other animals, and nature is ultimately an issue of values and ethics. Responsible food and agriculture systems must be shaped by ethics, equity, quality of life, and informed engagement of civil society that is connected both locally and internationally.“  The concluding chapter distills some of the key themes and ways forward explored in the preceding chapters.  It uses these themes to inform the concept of “inclusive responsibility” which embodies a vision of a healthy food and agriculture system. 

“An inclusively responsible food and agriculture system would encourage society to focus on agroecological sustainability as an integral part of overall ecosystem sustainability based on planetary boundaries.  Such a system would place importance on quality of life, pluralism, equity, and justice for all.  It would emphasize the health, wellbeing, sovereignty, dignity, and rights of farmers, consumers, and all other stakeholders, as well as of nonhuman animals and the natural world.  The concept of “inclusive responsibility” is ultimately based on an understanding of the interconnectedness of nature and the place and responsibility of human society within it.“

The authors have created a website, which shares extracts from each of the chapters.  You can read a brief summary of the chapters and…you can also ask your library to order a copy.

Adapting to climate change: the vegan answer to declining agricultural yields

Rob Baylis, MSc, MIEMA, CEnv
July 2020

The decade between 2020 and 2030 is probably the most important in the history of humanity.

There is a choice to be made between two alternative futures.  The first is to treat the Climate Emergency with the same level of urgency as the Covid-19 pandemic by cutting emissions of greenhouse gases sufficiently to limit global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Centigrade above what it was before the industrial revolution. In doing this, the quality of everyone’s lives will be much improved through better jobs, lifestyles and health along with reduced air pollution, more natural open spaces, more comfortable homes and less scope for conflict.  This will be especially important for the most vulnerable people in societies across the globe who will otherwise suffer the increasingly unequal and unjust impacts of climate change.

Scientific analysis channelled through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tells us that this choice will necessitate a reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050[1].  To achieve this, the level of emissions in 2020 will have to be cut by 50% by 2030, halved again by 2040 and the remainder eliminated in the following decade[2].  ‘Net zero’ will mean that any unavoidable emissions will have to be absorbed by carbon ‘sinks’ such as through restoring forests.

The second choice is to take inadequate, token or no action to limit greenhouse gas emissions, or even to grow them as is happening now with increases in consumption of animal products in some parts of the world, Amazon deforestation, Australian investments in coal mining, enlarging airports and the G20 nations (including the USA & UK) providing £95.5bn of unconditional support for fossil fuel firms between March and July 2020[3].   This business as usual choice will trigger irreversible climate changes (tipping points).  It is currently projected to deliver a disastrous global average temperature of over 4 degrees Centigrade by 2050[4].

Regardless of which path is chosen to the future, humanity will be forced to adapt to the changes in climate that are already with us now and those that are on their way as a result of historic emissions and the remaining ‘carbon budget’ that cannot be exceeded if global average temperature rise is to be no more than 1.5 °C above what it was before industrialisation.  Climate change is the cause of slow but already unstoppable rises in sea levels, retreating glaciers, more erratic monsoons and increasingly severe storms and heat waves.  The more frequent and intense instances of flooding in Calderdale must surely be local manifestations of climate change and the very heavy downpours it brings.  

Adaptation to the consequences of climate change is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media other than in the context of flooding.  One example of this media vacuum was a landmark report published in September 2019 by the Global Commission on Adaptation.  That report, Adapt now: A global call for leadership on climate resilience[5] indicates, amongst other things, that food insecurity is worsening because of more intense and frequent droughts and floods.  These impacts will be accompanied by a greater prevalence of pests, parasites and disease thereby reducing the productivity of land further.  

The Adapt Now report contains a very chilling forecast that agricultural yields could decline by as much as 30% by 2050 if ambitious action is not taken to limit climate change[6].  This would be linked to global demand for food increasing by 50% and prices rising by 20% for billions of low-income people.  At the same time, the report posits a 70% or higher growth in consumption of animal products.

To accept growth in the consumption of animal products without question or without proposing action would seem to be misguided but that is what the ‘expert’ authors of the Adapt Now report do.  Their proposals for adapting to declining agricultural yields are confined to that age-old substitute for action – more research – along with ‘digital advisory services for small-scale food producers’ and ‘expanded access to and use of adaptive technologies and agroecological practices’ that support ‘climate-resilient crops, fish and livestock’.  Or simply, tiptoeing around the edges of the symptoms rather than tackling the root cause of the problem.

Whilst it is laudable to focus on small-scale food producers and co-operatives, especially those in the less privileged parts of the world that will suffer disproportionately from the impacts of climate change, the Adapt Now report proposes no actions to reform large-scale food production.

Meat and dairy consumption accounts for at least 14.5% of worldwide carbon emissions[7] and so there is already a compelling case, on climate change grounds as well as health, ethical and other reasons, for a widespread switch to a vegan/plant-based diet.  However, animal products also account for 83% of agricultural land-use whilst serving only 37% of protein and 18% of calorie consumption[8].  Therefore, vegan/plant-based diets must be a solution to food insecurity and discriminatory injustice associated with the projected decline in agricultural productivity.

The IPCC’s Climate Change and Land report, published in 2019[9], did attract media attention because it was brave enough to address animal-based agriculture. It argued that ‘dietary changes could free several million km2 (medium confidence) of land’ by 2050.  Others have estimated that a global shift from animal to plant-based foods would reduce agricultural land-use by 76%, and water pollution by 49% compared with 2010 levels[10].

Recommendations to cut consumption of animal products are regarded by the media and politicians as contentious because people would need to change their addictions and habits to make the reduction happen.  Governments, particularly right-of-centre governments, are keen to avoid what they see as limiting personal freedoms[11].  Despite dietary change being a low-cost tool for tackling climate change, another key reason for institutional resistance to it  is the noisy and misleading objections from animal-agriculture’s vested interest groups and lobbyists.  Moreover in the UK, for example,  parliament is well known for being dominated by MPs with animal agriculture interests. In a future article, I will return to analysing the validity or otherwise of arguments by vested interest groups but dietary change has to be taken seriously if humanity is to adapt to a 30% decline in agricultural productivity.

Logically, there has to be two ways to make this adaptation.  Either, use more land for producing food, or eliminate inefficiencies in the production and use of food.  Given that the availability of land for agriculture is limited and there is much inefficiency in the use of existing agricultural land, it makes sense to tackle inefficiency as a priority. 

There are various aspects of inefficiency in food production.  One aspect is the estimated 9.5 million tonnes of food wasted in the UK every year[12].  Out of this, 380,000 tonnes of meat is wasted with a  value of £3 billion according to a  meat industry initiative Meat in a Net Zero World[13].  There is room for optimism here since both the public and private sector In the UK agree that food waste should be cut dramatically.

Not surprisingly, Meat in a Net Zero World fails to address the fundamental inefficiency inherent in meat (and other animal-derived foods).  Animals exploited for human food spend their lives converting plants into flesh, eggs and milks at the same time as releasing greenhouse gases, defecating, urinating and converting food into energy.  In contrast, vegans eat plants directly.  The result of this is that the mean area of land required to produce beef is 164m2 per nutritional unit compared with 3.4m2 for peas[14].  That’s 48 times more land for beef than needed to grow peas to provide the same level of nutrition. 

Part of the reason for the huge disparity in land requirements is the large areas dedicated to growing animal feed instead of food for direct human consumption.  Changing to a vegan/plant-based diet will therefore be crucial in liberating the land necessary to cope with the forecast drop in agricultural productivity if cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are not enough to limit global average temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Centigrade.   It will also release land for restoring natural vegetation, such as forests, to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.


[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

[2] J. Falk, O. Gaffney, A. K. Bhowmik, P. Bergmark, V. Galaz, N. Gaskell, S. Henningsson, M. Höjer, L. Jacobson, K. Jónás, T. Kåberger, D. Klingenfeld, J. Lenhart, B. Loken, D. Lundén, J. Malmodin, T. Malmqvist, V. Olausson, I. Otto, A. Pearce, E. Pihl, T. Shalit, Exponential Roadmap 1.5.1. Future Earth. Sweden. (January 2020.)

[3] https://www.edie.net/news/11/G20-nations-funnel–151bn-of-Covid-19-recovery-funding-into-fossil-fuels/

[4] Interpolated from https://climateactiontracker.org/

[5] https://gca.org/global-commission-on-adaptation/report

[6] This is in addition to forecasts that the UK has less than 40 years of fertility left in its agricultural soils due to intensive farming.

[7] http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/

[8] Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360, 987–992

[9] https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

[10] Poore & Nemecek, op. cit.

[11] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45838997

[12] https://wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Food_%20surplus_and_waste_in_the_UK_key_facts_Jan_2020.pdf

[13] WRAP, 2020, Banbury, Meat in a Net Zero world

[14] Poore & Nemecek, op. cit.

Image by Pexels from Pixabay 

Encouraging activities for all in the IPCC report on food, land and climate

Recently, we wrote about the UN’s special report on climate change. More specifically, the group responsible is called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Today, we would like to share an encouraging excerpt:

“Consumption of healthy and sustainable diets presents major
opportunities for reducing GHG emissions from food systems and improving health outcomes (high confidence). Examples of healthy and sustainable diets are high in coarse grains, pulses, fruits and vegetables, and nuts and seeds; low in energy-intensive animal-sourced and discretionary foods (such as sugary beverages);  and with a carbohydrate threshold.”

The best way to achieve this healthy and sustainable diet is adopt a partly or fully vegan lifestyle. 3 Valley Vegans helps people in the upper Calder valley with our continued events, newsletters, social media and web pages.

Source: IPCC SRCCL final government draft (chapter 5 food security, pages 5-6). Accessed 14 September 2019.

The food security challenge

The global food system is under pressure. Over the next 35 years, the growing global population will demand more food than has ever been produced in human history!

Animation by Zedem Media via Global Food Security.

3 Oct: Climate Action Ilkley talk: are our food habits the problem or solution?

Climate change and environmental breakdown: are our food habits the problem or solution?

Eat less red meat? white meat? dairy? fish? Eat more veg? fruit? Even ‘go vegan to save the planet’. The food we choose to eat, and the farming systems producing it, have a huge impact on climate as well as on soil, water and biodiversity.

Tim Benton, Professor at Chatham House and Ilkley resident, will give an authoritative national and global perspective followed by questions and discussion.

Professor Tim Benton is the director of the Energy, Environment and Resources Department at Chatham House. He joined Chatham House in 2016 as a distinguished visiting fellow, when he was also dean of strategic research initiatives at the University of Leeds. From 2011-2016 he was the “champion” of the UK’s Global Food Security programme which was a multi-agency partnership of the UK’s public bodies (government departments, devolved governments and research councils) with an interest in the challenges around food. He has worked with UK governments, the EU and G20. He has been a global agenda steward of the World Economic Forum and is an author of the IPCC’s Special Report on Food, Land and Climate (2019), and the UK’s Climate Change Risk Assessment.

Doors open at 19.15 and the talk will start promptly at 19.30.

This talk is supported by Climate Action Ilkley, the Wharfedale Naturalists Society and the Ilkley U3A environmental forum.

Burning down the Amazon: meat and dairy at the root of it

Few will have missed the recent news reports about the awful spate of fires burning down vast areas of the Amazon rainforest, the generator of 20% of the world’s oxygen and home to 10% of the world’s known biodiversity.  However, the media were less willing to attribute the cause to anything more than the Trumpian antics of Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro.   What they rarely reported was that 91% of Amazonian land deforested since 1970 has been used for livestock (sic) pasture or that Brazil is the world’s largest beef exporter.

Brazil is also the world’s second largest producer of soybeans on land that has previously been used for cattle ranching.  90% of that crop is exported worldwide as animal feed for cattle, pigs and chickens and a third of all British soy imports are for that purpose.  Your tofu and tempeh are not blameless in the Brazilian fires but meat and dairy consumption is many times worse, especially due to the inefficiency in feeding the soy to animals rather than to humans directly.  More at Vegan Sustainability.

Also, Brazilian beef is being used as a Brexit negotiating ploy.

Even though few media outlets linked the Amazon fires to meat and dairy consumption, a recent YouGov poll of more than 2,000 people showed that over half of the British public believe that reducing meat consumption should be prioritised as a key way to slow down climate change.  Reduction doesn’t mean elimination but at least this poll shows that people are making the link between meat and climate change even if Government ministers are less willing to advocate dietary change for the climate.  Sadly, the poll also found that 37% of the population is unwilling to cut their meat intake at all.  More from Edie.

Image: Amazon Fires seen from space. Credit: NASA Worldview.