Posts Tagged ‘food’

Climate change: what’s the beef?

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

October 15th is blog action day, with this year’s theme being climate change. What better day, then, to touch on the profound impacts of factory farming and the global livestock industry on our planet.

The top-line is that the world’s livestock is responsible for a massive 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s more than all of our planes, cars and other transport put together. And the bad news doesn’t end there. Currently, 60 billion farm animals are produced each year, the majority in factory farms. According to experts at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), this figure could double by 2050 as demand surges for meat and dairy products, particularly in developing countries. 120 billion farm animals would bring big challenges to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It would also increase the land, energy and water resources needed to grow the crops to feed them.

As we know from previous postings, factory farmed animals guzzle grain. A third of the global grain harvest goes to feed farm animals.  And just like those big gas-guzzling ‘automobiles’, intensively reared farm animals can be incredibly wasteful; one kilogramme of intensively-reared beef requires around 20 kg of animal feed and nearly 16,000 litres – about a hundred bathtubs – of water to produce.

The projection of a doubling in animal production comes at a time when climate change may make large areas of the world’s current cropland unusable or seriously reduce crop yields due to coastal flooding or drought. A one metre rise in sea level is possible by the end of this century, perhaps even by mid-century. This would flood a fifth of Bangladesh and 2 million square kilometres of land globally. As many as 150-200 million people could be permanently displaced by 2050 due to rising sea levels, floods and droughts. These people might well need to settle on what was previously farmland. Water resources could become so stretched as to cause armed conflicts in some areas.

The huge resources of land, water and energy on which our current intensive livestock production is based, let alone a doubling, may simply not be available by 2050.

As demand for livestock products continues to surge, particularly in developing countries, the onus is surely on the rich world to take a lead on this issue. If we are to have a hope of stabilising the numbers of farm animals worldwide, and mitigating the effects on our climate and precious resources, the European Union and other high-income countries need to reduce meat and dairy consumption by 60% by 2050.

But less is more; instead of eating lots of ‘cheap’ meat from factory farmed animals reared in appalling conditions, the mid-century consumer could be eating less, but better quality meat and milk, preferably reared by local farmers. Under this scenario, farmers would be better able to earn a premium for their products, with higher prices being reflective of the carbon costs of consuming livestock products. This kind of move would not only have climate benefits, but would enable farmers to move toward more extensive, humane and sustainable farming methods, like free range or organic.

These issues and more will be up for discussion at our major lecture event in London on the evening of Thursday 29th October. Lester Brown of the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute will be our special guest speaker and will no doubt have much to say on these important topics. To be there with us, click here for your tickets.

On the subject of lectures, yesterday, I heard Sir Richard Branson describe the battle against climate change as like fighting both world wars at the same time. Given the scale of the task, society surely has to dare to challenge, and make it stick. Reappraising the way we view products from our farm animals has got to be high on the list to address. With a fifth of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock, and factory farming representing the biggest issue of animal cruelty on the planet, the time is right to tackle both issues head-on at once. If we fail to do so, it could be more than beef getting a roasting on planet Earth.

A paradigm shift in thinking

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Over the weekend, leaders from the international animal welfare movement met in Paris to discuss what’s needed to succeed over the coming decades. One answer is that we need a paradigm shift in attitude toward animals at policy level. One that recognises that factory farming is not the way to feed the world sustainably. One that recognises the intrinsic value of animals and that denying this places global food supplies and ecological balances in grave danger.

One key point explored was the need to end factory farming worldwide by 2050. Why 2050? Because the coming decades will change profoundly our current world of plenty as climate change bites and precious resources dwindle.

Livestock farming is already a major user of land; it takes up 30 per cent of the world’s usable land area and consumes a third of the global grain harvest. Vast numbers of animals are now raised permanently indoors and reliant on food grown elsewhere. Consequently, massive areas of land are devoted to growing crops to feed them. Humans compete with farm animals for precious grain resources and with cars as biofuels take an increasing share of our croplands.

By 2050, the world’s human population is predicted to increase from 6.7 billion to about 9 billion people. At the same time, the livestock population is set to double in the wake of growing demand for meat and dairy products, particularly from developing countries such as China and India. The global livestock industry already contributes 18 per cent of human-produced greenhouse gas emissions – more than the entire contribution of human transport. As the effects of global warming take hold, the sea is likely to rise and land will disappear Plentiful, cheap oil, the essential ingredient of industrial agriculture, is likely to become scarcer and more expensive, unraveling the current economics of so-called ‘cheap’ meat.

Factory farming has been the engine-room of the livestock explosion, enabling large numbers of animals to be reared in small spaces. And there’s the rub. The world rarely gives something for nothing. Large numbers of animals in small spaces leads to environmental degradation and threats to our health as well as unimaginable animal suffering. At the same time, we cannot overlook those ‘ghost acres’ which are required to grow the feed for intensively housed animals. Factory farms are protein factories in reverse. They waste valuable food which could be used more efficiently if fed directly to humans. To produce 1kg of edible meat by typical industrial methods requires 20kg of feed for beef, 7kg for pig meat and 4kg for chicken meat. On average, to produce 1kg of animal protein, livestock are fed nearly 6kg of plant protein.

If demand for resource-intensive meat escalates in the way predicted and if the number of farm animals produced annually doubles by 2050, the world faces severe resource challenges, which will impact farm and wild animals.

The demand for feed crops for livestock will put intensive animal production in direct competition for land with people, biofuel production, forests and wildlife. For food production alone, an additional two million square kilometers of land will be needed by 2030. Sea rise predictions due to climate change suggest that a similar area of land could be flooded by the end of this century.

All of this suggests that business as usual is not an option. The spread of factory farming and high meat consumption levels in rich countries are unsustainable. By 2050, the world will look a very different place. For the sake of farm and wild animals, people and the planet, we need to ensure that by 2050 the world has moved on from the folly of factory farming.

Turning things around will require a paradigm shift in global policy thinking at all levels. To achieve this, we first need a paradigm shift in our thinking. The question is no longer what can we do practically to oppose factory farming? The question is what must we do to end factory farming by 2050?

Our first and last need is for your support. Thanks to you, we have already achieved a great deal. With your further support, I promise you, we will be able to do much more.

The world we want

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

It would be all too easy for an organization like Compassion to focus only on what’s wrong. We’re all guilty of pointing the finger of blame at someone sometime. But we live in different times. We brought our world to a critical point. We share the blame for global warming, world hunger, unhealthy lifestyles, animal cruelty and much more. We know what’s wrong. We know who to blame. Us. But what can we do about it?

That’s why Compassion not only focuses on the problem of factory farming but also on the solution to feeding the world. We work strategically toward a whole food system that is truly kind, caring and honest – kind to animals; caring for the environment and consumer health; and honestly labeled. That’s why we work with, for example, farmers, producers, elected representatives and colleagues in like-minded organizations toward holistic solutions to international problems.

For example, this year’s Peter Roberts Third Memorial Lecture will be given by Lester Brown, the visionary global figure in farming, food security and environmental policy. His talk, “How Can We Feed the World and Protect the Environment?,” is on Thursday, October 29 at the Savoy Place in central London. Tickets are £25 and booking is essential. Book online or call +44 (0)1483-521953.

Last year’s speaker, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, asked people to reduce their meat consumption starting with one day per week.

Have you noticed a groundswell of interest in what we have known all along? For example, TIME’s magazine’s recent cover feature, Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food, states:

“With the exhaustion of the soil, the impact of global warming and the inevitably rising price of oil – which will affect everything from fertilizer to supermarket electricity bills – our industrial style of food production will end sooner or later.”

It’s one thing, of course, to see the problem. It’s another to look for the solution. The real challenge is bringing them together to move beyond factory farming. Toward a humane and sustainable farming future. For those of us who live in developed countries we can start now.

  • Reduce by 30 per cent below current levels our consumption of intensively-produced meat, milk and dairy products by 2020 and by 60-80 per cent by 2050
  • Institute targets and incentives for farmers and consumers to support the transition to sustainable livestock production
  • Recognize meat and milk as under-priced in relation to their real environmental and carbon costs and their impact on public health and animal welfare
  • Work with farmers to move from intensive to more extensive, finest free-range methods of animal production thereby encouraging rural livelihoods
  • Voluntary action and regulation of food manufacturers, retailers and caterers to improve product availability and educate consumers on wise choice.

The world we want is possible. Here’s how we can start now.

Cultured meat

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

I recall first hearing about meat grown in a laboratory in 2005 when I was called into a Sky TV studio at short notice to talk about it. I remember thinking it could not be possible. I am used to seeing pigs, chickens, cows and other animals frequently reared in cruel conditions on farms and killed in slaughterhouses whose practices had failed to move forward with the times. This is what meat so often means to me. These are the issues that Compassion works hard to change every day. The idea of test tube grown rather than factory farmed meat seemed more like a scene from a bad 1950s science fiction novel. Nonetheless, I was intrigued.

What if it were possible to feed people meat without killing billions of animals? What about its environmental and economic impact? Using animals to produce food to feed people is grossly inefficient and often heavily subsidized by government. Does it require massive doses of antibiotics? Closely confined animals need drugs routinely to stop them from becoming sick and spreading disease. Does this therefore mean lab grown meat could be healthier to eat? I also thought about the people who work on factory farms and in slaughterhouses and how horrible their jobs must be. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for them if they had less dangerous and more satisfying places to work in?

Like me, you probably do your best to keep up with developments in technology and how they make a positive impact on how we live. True, sometimes there are serious setbacks. Overall, however, I believe we are better off with them. Yes, I was initially skeptical about lab grown meat. But as I learned more from the New Harvest Foundation I realized this could be truly revolutionary. ‘Cultured’ meat – as I subsequently discovered it is correctly called – has the potential to make all the difference to everything we care about: animals, people and the environment.

So, what is cultured meat?

Like bread, cheese, yoghurt and wine, cultured meat basically involves the process of growing cells from outside of the organism to which they belong to produce a finished product. Cultured meat is produced by taking cells from a live farmed animal (killing is unnecessary) and growing them in a nutrient-rich medium in sterile conditions. The cells are nurtured and developed into pieces of meat. Living tissue is already grown in the laboratory and used, for example, to repair and replace diseased or injured organs such as skin. This in vitro (meaning in glass) method of growing tissue was developed by the biomedical industry as part of the initiative to replace live animal experimentation. Within the next decade, the technology will have advanced to be capable of producing the equivalent of mince or ground meat. More than 50 per cent of the meat eaten in the world is consumed this way (e.g., burgers and other convenience food products). This means that if cultured meat as mince becomes economically viable and replaces present methods of meat production to produce ground meat a significant number of animals will be not be bred and killed. Further, as the technology develops and economics of scale work in its favor, cultured meat will be able to produce more complex pieces of meat (e.g., chicken leg, lamb cutlet).

Compassion’s relationship with cultured meat, albeit in a different form as textured soya protein, originates with our founders, Peter and Anna Roberts. Dairy farmers shocked at the direction agriculture was taking, they started Direct Foods in 1969. Its mission was to provide a plant-based meat-like alternative. Direct Foods’ products included Sosmix, Burgamix and Protoveg, which fuelled many an animal welfare activist in its time!

Cultured meat may not be the whole answer to all our problems. There are still some challenging issues to address. Some will oppose the technology. Some will refuse to eat it. That is their choice. Nonetheless, I am convinced cultured meat will become an important piece in the strategy we’re building and implementing to move beyond factory farming. Please read more about our Strategic Plan 2009-2014.

In short, cultured meat is an exciting scientific innovation that could have far-reaching beneficial consequences for all.

Flickr

Campaigners outside the Polish Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden DSC00756Campaigners in Bratislava, Slovakia Supporters sign a petition to defend the the hens in Warsaw, PolandCampaigners at the Polish Embassy in The Hague, NetherlandsMr. Jankowski, The  Ambassador’s personal councilor with Amalia Sotirhou at the Polish Embassy in Psychiko, GreeceCampaigners at the Polish Embassy in Berlin, Germany Campaigners at the Polish Embassy in Helsinki, PolandCampaigners at the Polish Embassy in Tallinn, Estonia

Compassion videos

Commenting Guidelines

I want a lively blog and actively welcome comments - both for and against. Please keep them clean and respectful of others' views. We will delete any comments that contain swearing, advocate any forms of violence, are defamatory, or for legal reasons. We reserve the right to correct any misspellings/typos, and may edit comments for reasons of space.