Eat meat and save the planet?
October 2nd 2010 07:19
The cause of global environmental action has not had a great year in 2010. After the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009, when the leaders of the world gathered and demonstrated the profound commitment of politicians to achieving nothing, you'd think things could not have grown worse.
They did, with the release of a report in Britain in the new year which showed that vegetarianism is bad for the planet.
It was the conclusion of a study published by Cranfield University which looked at the effects on the British beef and lamb industries from growing imports of meat substitutes such as tofu. What they found was that the decline in meat consumption was causing an increase in land cultivation and risk to forests. They also found that production methods for meat substitutes could be energy intensive and the final products tended to be highly processed.
Donal Murphy-Bokern, one of the report's authors and a former senior government environmentalist, said: "For some people, tofu and other meat substitutes symbolise environmental friendliness, but they are not necessarily the badge of merit that people claim."
And in the words of the report's conclusion: "A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK."
The report was not commissioned, as might be supposed, by the livestock industry. It was commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund, which was moved to offer a clarification, reminding us that that livestock produce large amounts of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
In a further caveat, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society said: "If you're aiming to reduce your environmental impact by going vegetarian, then it's obviously not a great idea to rely on highly-processed products."
They did, with the release of a report in Britain in the new year which showed that vegetarianism is bad for the planet.
It was the conclusion of a study published by Cranfield University which looked at the effects on the British beef and lamb industries from growing imports of meat substitutes such as tofu. What they found was that the decline in meat consumption was causing an increase in land cultivation and risk to forests. They also found that production methods for meat substitutes could be energy intensive and the final products tended to be highly processed.
Donal Murphy-Bokern, one of the report's authors and a former senior government environmentalist, said: "For some people, tofu and other meat substitutes symbolise environmental friendliness, but they are not necessarily the badge of merit that people claim."
And in the words of the report's conclusion: "A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK."
The report was not commissioned, as might be supposed, by the livestock industry. It was commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund, which was moved to offer a clarification, reminding us that that livestock produce large amounts of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
In a further caveat, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society said: "If you're aiming to reduce your environmental impact by going vegetarian, then it's obviously not a great idea to rely on highly-processed products."
| 91 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
