When a talking point demonizing an aspect of our modern lifestyles becomes part of the so-called “conventional wisdom,” it becomes a problem for the affected industry.
Such is the case with the notion that “eating less meat helps control climate change.” There are several ways to phrase the idea, but they all end up at the same place: Every time a person skips the meat, the Earth gets a little cooler.
Serious scientists have underscored the idea that meat production involves a globally significant carbon footprint, although transportation, manufacturing and other aspects of agriculture (deforestation, principally) contribute as much or more to the overall production of greenhouse gases—with arguably less direct benefit. Anti-animal ag activists, of course, love the commotion created over climate change, because it gives them a powerful mantra to repeat at every opportunity: Eat less meat; save the planet.
That such an utterly simplistic approach to an incredibly complex issue can gain widespread traction is worrisome, and not just for the future viability of the meat and poultry industries but for the validity of science itself.
And when you start to see the less meat = cooler climate slogan popping up in places such as Singapore, you know it’s a serious problem.
Singapore, for those unfamiliar, is an island city-state at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, with more than 5 million citizens shoe-horned into only 274 square miles. By comparison, Rhode Island, our smallest state, is five times the size of Singapore, with only one-fifth the population. Along with its notorious justice system—which authorizes caning for vandalism or public indecency—Singapore, like Hong Kong, exists solely as a financial service center (and one of the world’s biggest casino destinations, as well).
Yet despite its near-total dependence on imported food, energy and virtually every other necessity, the country is embarking on an aggressive program to educate its citizens on the threat of climate change. That’s understandable for an island country that would be severely impacted if ocean levels were to rise significantly, as many climate scientists predict. But the approach being used is troubling.
For instance, Singapore’s National Climate Change Secretariat has launched a campaign to mitigate climate change. And guess what’s right up at the top of the list? Eat less meat.
The official NCCS position noted that, “Meat production contributes some 14% to 22% of global emissions,” and that information should be incorporated into the country’s primary and secondary school geography and science curricula.
Manipulating the menu
Now keep in mind that Singapore produces very little of its own food—near zero. The NCCS position paper noted that, “The carbon footprint of the food the Republic consumes is not straightforward. Production and transport processes, for instance, often take place outside Singapore and cannot be easily verified.”
That’s an understatement. Virtually everything—production, processing and packaging—related to food production takes place “outside Singapore.” Shoving meat off the menu, only to be replaced by other processed food substitutes, is hardly a viable solution that could impact the release of greenhouse gases.
The point of referencing Singapore’s climate change initiative isn’t to knock the country’s interests in reducing its carbon footprint, it’s to note that when a country so totally dependent on food imports embraces the less meat/more veggies mantra, those responsible for positioning animal agriculture ought to be worried.
In a country with a large amount of arable acreage, a significant livestock production industry and a population large enough that dietary change could be impactful, the argument that curtailing meat production could impact climate change has some validity—at least for that specific country.
But with a tiny island nation that is little more than an energy-intensive sinkhole with a population density unsustainable without significant imports of virtually every necessity required to maintain life, switching entrees on either foodservice or household menus amounts to a game of rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship.
Energy issues are incredibly important, and not just in terms of climate effects. We can argue the timetable, but eventually, the entire world will be forced to abandon fossil fuels in favor of renewable energy. Agriculture plays a critical role in that conversion process, with the obvious exception of the ill-advised investment we’ve made in corn-based ethanol production.
Producers need to be working to extract every possible BTU from every possible by-product and waste product involved in animal agriculture and meat processing, from developing localized bioenergy systems at every feedlot, packing plant and processing facility to incorporating energy efficiencies at every stage of production.
Most importantly, the industry must match the volume with which its opponents are broadcasting the no more meat mantra with both science-based data demonstrating the shrinking carbon footprint of intensive production, coupled with a straightforward message that raising livestock is a natural, efficient, synergistic component of food production.
Meat on the menu means a more sustainable future.
It’s that simple.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan Murphy, a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator.
Comments (0) Leave a comment