I prefer not to eat food that has a face. But many of my nearest and dearest
love their meat, and who am I to ask them not to eat so much of it? Until
now, that is.
Having just discovered the huge impact of livestock production on global
warming, I need hesitate no longer. Reducing our meat consumption is no
longer an option but an urgent necessity. Here’s why.
Eighteen per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions that we produce come from
the production of livestock – that’s 4 per cent more than from transport.
That’s not all, as the amount of meat and dairy produce consumed globally is
set roughly to double by 2050: so if there’s a problem now, how big will it
be by then?
You might wonder why official concern over climate change has focused so
strongly on carbon offsetting, greening your home and cutting your transport
and has all but neglected the huge role played by our consumption of meat
and dairy products. Could it be fear of being seen as the nanny state? Has
our dietary choice become a sacred cow?
Sadly it’s cows themselves who are a big part of the problem, churning out
massive amounts of methane in their burps and farts, and yet more from the
decomposition of their liquid slurry. Carbon dioxide emissions are greatest
from the massive deforestation carried out, mainly in Brazil, to raise beef
cattle or to grow swaths of soya beans for turning into animal feed, a
valuable export. Further noxious emissions, such as nitrous oxide, are
released from manure and from the use of nitrogen fertiliser to grow feed
crops for animals.
Livestock farming has many other adverse effects on the global environment,
being the largest source of water pollution and degradation of coastal areas
and coral reefs. In some parts of the world overgrazing is harming
biodiversity and pasture lands; elsewhere it is turning more and more
pastures to desert. In addition the livestock sector is responsible for more
than 8 per cent of human water use. This doesn’t sound huge, but is
important at a time when water shortage is becoming a critical issue in many
parts of the world.
Globally between a third and a half of the world’s cereal harvest and most of
the soya is fed to intensively farmed animals. Yet much of the nutritional
value of the feed is lost in its “conversion” to meat. The predicted
doubling in the numbers of animals will increase the likelihood of global
pandemics, often associated with the intensification of livestock farming.
And if we don’t act to stop climate change, we know that it is the poor who
will become the environmental refugees.
We can’t ignore either the compelling argument of animal welfare. The thought
of twice as many pigs confined in crowded concrete pens, billions more meat
chickens limping painfully through their short lives in their ammonia-ridden
sheds and more dairy cows bred to produce yet more milk and struggling to
cope with the physiological strains this level of production places on them:
to me, this is a nightmare.
Studies in Europe, America and Japan have shown that the more meat in your
diet, the greater the global warming potential and the lower its energy
efficiency in your body. If you eat a portion of pasta with frozen broccoli
and peas it will be roughly three times more energy-efficient than pasta
with beef and twice as energy-efficient as pasta with pork. To put it
another way, producing your average Sunday joint of roast beef results in
greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to driving from London to Manchester.
We may not all want to be vegans – though the time to mock their plant-based
diet is long gone – but we can all take steps to alter our own eating
habits. We can all take the “Big Food Challenge”.
Based on the best scientific evidence to date, in a report out today
Compassion in World Farming calculates that to reduce our impact on climate
change we need to reduce consumption of meat and dairy products in line with
government carbon reduction targets, that is, by one third by 2020 and by 60
per cent by 2050. That could mean having a couple of meat-free days a week,
reducing the amount of meat (for example, eating one lamb chop, not two) or,
more likely, increasing the number of meat-free meals and maybe substituting
dairy milk and cream with equivalents made from soya beans or oats at some
meals.
As for the impact of this type of dietary change on your own health – why,
only last month The Lancet published an article from public health
experts in three countries, which said that cutting meat consumption in
developed countries from the current 200-250g per person per day to 90g per
day would help to reduce obesity and have several other health benefits,
including a likely reduction in colorectal cancer.
Compassion in World Farming wants us to take the Big Food Challenge (more at www.ciwf.org/globalwarning)
and reduce our meat and dairy consumption. When we buy animal products it
recommends paying a little more for the organic or free-range equivalent. We
can all be adventurous too, and try foods such as tofu and tempeh and find
out the best ways to cook them. If you eat a varied diet, you know you will
not be missing out on vital nutrients.
So, to benefit the planet, the animals and your own health, why not join me
and take the Big Food Challenge?
It's clearly not very sensible to consume meat or any animal products. To do so you deny living, breathing, thinking, feeling creatures their intrinsic rights and destroy the planet as well.
Many say 'cutting down is enough'.
I say why not cut it all out? It's healthy and not hard.
Tim Miller, Ipswich, UK
Someone earlier said "Cut the methane, cut the subsidies". The only reason that farmers need subsidies in the first place is because the general public don't pay enough for what they eat! This is the supermarkets' fault since their intense competition has caused them to sell their food for next to nothing.
The simple fact is this lazy country has totally forgotten where its food comes from and how much it is worth.
As for stopping farming of livestock to slow global warming - you must be joking! I think this argument is used mainly by people who just don't want to feel bad because they have 3 cars between 4 people and can't be bothered getting the bus! Livestock farming produces an essential product - driving to work every day is a luxury.
It doesn't matter anyway because soon we're all going to be eating low grade brazilian beef which has been raised in foot and mouth infested rainforest.
Scott (a farmers son), Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire
Clouds and the sun, that`s it, read The Chilling Stars by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder, consider Occam's razor, look for the obvious, All CO2 does is increase plant growth.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide has nearly doubled since the 19th century. Temperature has only increased by 1° Fahrenheit, conclusively disproving the predictions of the global warming theory. All the uproar is about recent, short-term trends. 40 years ago the emergency was global cooling. No warming since 1998, see MET OFFICE.
The Greenhouse Effect is logarithmic. It increases rapidly to saturation, then levels off. Any further increase in concentration has no further effect. The CO2 spectrum is near saturation already. Though CO2 increase to infinity, it will have minimal additional greenhouse effect.
The Department of Energy says 99.438% of greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Footnote: this excludes water vapor the main greenhouse gas which is 95%; CO2 is 99.438% of the remaining 5%.
Rob, notts, UK
To those proclaiming the 'elephant in the room' of population, it's not just the number of people, but the amount of resources ised by those people that's the problem. It could be rephrased as the number of people leading 'Western' lifestyles. If all 6.7 billion of us each used the same amount of resources as the average bangladeshi, we wouldn't have a problem (the amount consumed would be the equivalent of that used by around 150 million average Americans). If everyone in the world adopted a vegan diet, that would be a great start!
To KR in Stockport, the figure of 18% of global GHG emissions coming from livestock (4% more than transport), is from a UN report - 'livestock's long shadow' - not the animal rights organisation
Greg Colbourn, Norwich, UK
Someone referred to soya products being a problem. The amount of soya eaten directly by human beings is infinitesimal compared to that being fed to the cows, pigs, and chickens of Europe - that is the reason for the destruction of the Amazon rain forest. Get real please! In view of the fact that livestock are a bigger problem than all the transport in the world it is hard to understand why motor vehicles and their fuel are so heavily taxed whilst livestock are subsidised to the tune of billions per year through the Common Agricultural Policy. There's no need to tax meat perhaps but we should certainly be stopping all the subsidies and letting the consumers of the products, rather than tax payers including vegetarian taxpayers bear the cost of Foot and Mouth Disease, BSE, Avian Flu, Bluetongue, etc. the list keeps getting longer. CUT THE METHANE, CUT THE SUBSIDIES, I say!
Neville Fowler, Carmarthen,
Soya products also cause damage, but as over 90% are consumed by farm animals, again the concern comes back to animal farming.
Personally after lots of enjoyable exerimentation and research into with food I have a diet I enjoy, is interesting, enjoyable, and enables me to easily keep at levels of fitness few acheive without a great deal of effort. It's a vegan diet.
Cris, Devon, UK
When will people understand that it's CO2 in the atmosphere that regulates global warming? Core samples have clearly shown that CO2 levels rise following an increase in the Earth's temperature, not before (and thus contributing to) it. This global warming because of CO2 build up is a complete con - just like the millenium bug was.
Carl Partridge, Warks, UK
the opinion expressed in the article are scientfic facts proven beyond doubt and the fact that people still debate is very appalling...meat eaters are a burden to this planet and after reading some of the posts ,i believe in transmission of mad cow disease to humans
amith, aberden, scotland
soya products aren't that good either
maggie, winchester, UK
When it comes to climate change the 'do nothing' argument just doesn't make any sense.
Latest scientific evidence is clear that total carbon concentrations in the atmosphere can only be stabilized at a safe level (no more than 2°C global rise in temperature) if emission reductions of 80-90% take place by 2050.
These reductions have to come from somewhere and meat consumption is a major contributor to total emissions.
The truth is that we can't continue to act exactly as we do now and expect everything to be fine.
Nic , York, UK
I find Daniel Churcher's viewpoint absolutely staggering! I would ask him to ask himself what he thinks his quality of life is really going to be like when large parts of the world are suffering from food and water shortages, and when millions of environmental refugees are on the move, looking for higher or fertile ground?
Its great that he's prepared to take 'one hit' to his quality of life, but mate, wake up and smell the weather. We're all going to have to make significant changes to the frivolous way we live in the rich West. And may I add that art, science and joy are not enjoyed by the whole species, but a small part of it. The rest of humanity is trying to find adequate food and water in a local environment thats been depleted by the selfish rich nations.
Please wake up!
Raoul Bhambral, London, UK
Hitler was not a vegetarian - this is now thought to be a fiction perpetuated by Goebbels’ propaganda.
However, many of the world's great thinkers have been vegetarian, for example, ancient Greek philosophers - many people consider the great mathematician and scientist Pythagoras to be ‘the father of vegetarianism’. The great trio of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the founders of Western thinking on philosophy, logic, rhetoric and mathematics, were all vegetarian. History is teeming with vegetarian geniuses, such as Leonardo da Vinci (scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, painter, sculptor, architect, musician, writer), or Sir Isaac Newton (physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher). Many great artists have also been vegetarian, ie Tolstoy, Kafka, H G Wells, Shelley, J D Salinger, and George Bernard Shaw. Einstein was a vegetarian, as were Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison. Mahatma Gandhi was a vegetarian. Today’s famous British vegetarians include Tony Benn, Hilary Benn, Paul McCartney, Stella McCartney, Benjamin Zephaniah, Martin Shaw, Kate Winslet...
Gill, Colchester,
Vegetarians more attractive and intelligent?! Hitler was vegetarian.
What we urgently need are fewer lectures from the huge number of methane-producing celebrities!
Melanie, Liverpool,
People who think a vegetarian diet is no fun just aren't doing it properly. I can't think of anything more boring than eating a Big Mac. And on the subject of fun, the statistics speak volumes: vegetarians tend to have more active sex lives, tend to be more attractive and intelligent and we live longer than meat eaters too. Modesty might be an issue though!
There's nothing hard about eating less meat and the health and environmental benefits are huge, so what's to stop people trying it, except out of date, narrow-minded attitudes?
Jeannine McAndrew, Colchester, England
The proposals in this article like many others that hope to reduce climate change pay little attention to the sacrifice in quality of life that such proposals demand.
I am more than willing to admit that for most sacrificing meat two or three days a week would have a not-enormous effect on their happiness. However, adopting such an attitude sets a dangerous precedent. If we are to accept one hit to the quality of life, where do we draw the line? What is the benefit to be found in saving those in the world less well-off from floods, famine and the other potential dangers of climate change if in the process we reduce our own quality of life to the abhorrent standard of those we seek to help, in the process destroying the capacity of humanity for the creation of art, science and joy, a wealth of which we currently take benefit of as a species?
This is why scientific innovation must be the answer to this latest threat, as it has been to so many others that the human race has faced.
Daniel Churcher, Cambridge, England
Well said, Susie! Also, do not forget a huge number of methane producing cows that are not used for anything, no meat or other products, namely the Holy cows of India! maybe time to cut down their numbers! The only alternative is to go vegan, NOT vegetarian. Vegetarians eat milkproducts. To get milk the cow has to have a calf every year. If we do not kill and eat the calf (cows and bulls), we will be worse off than before! Imagine all the retired bulls and cows! The whole enviromental issue today is twisted, basic biological truths are "forgotten" ot ignored. If CO2 is that dangerous, why do we allow that most of todays cars are equipped with catalyst technology, that has CO2 as an end product? Very strange!
Jan, Georgetown, Grand Caymab
If the likes of Joanna Lumley wish to save on energy and the carbon footprint could they stop the entertainment industry where spotlights and television recordings are used making the sort of rubbish we now see on television. Britain without grass fields would be a prairie landscape.
David ,Rutland
David, oakham, England
All very laudible, and within limits, the beautiful lady, has argurd well. She does however mention world water shortage, ma'am, it is caused not by a limit on water, but like most other troubles by a vast excess of humans, about by a factor of 2. Yet
still we continue to breed ourselves to destruction,
making one and a half miliion extra mouths to feed every week.
DAVID VINTER, Louth, Lincs. , UK
Climate Change is caused by a rapid rise in greenhouse gases as fossilised organic material grown over tens of millions of years is released within a few brief decades as the resulting oil. gas and coal are burned. In contrast, cattle numbers are relatively stable and are comparable to the massive numbers of wild ruminants such as Buffalo and Bison which the planet used to support. In comparison with CO2 which lasts for decades, methane from cow (or Bison) burps is very short lived in an atmosphere which has coped with it for millenia. Furthermore, the world's grasslands are among its greatest carbon 'sinks'. They are dependent on, and inseparable from the livestock which graze them.. If ploughed up for arable crops, billions of tons of carbon will be released into the atmosphere with disastrous effects.
The major agricultural impact on climate change is from the nitrogen fertiliser used in all intensive farming, both arable and livestock - so eat organic meat and veg.
Aidan Harrison, Morpeth, Northumberland
Animal farming is responsible for putting a horrific number of wild species on the endangered list, even without its contribution to greenhouse gases. We have the native wildlife directly persecuted (wolves in Norway, badgers in the UK, ground squirrels in Saskatchewan, bison in Montana, you name it, the livestock industry will find a reason to kill it) as well as those which suffer from diseases spread by stock (anthrax in southern Africa etc) and then the habitat destroyed to make way for pastures and the crops to feed cows...
In addition, what some contributors seem to have missed is that it takes far more soya to produce beefburgers than it does to feed humans directly. And what about Quorn? Tasty and healthy and doesn't involve destroying virgin rainforest.
No man is an island. Your choice to eat meat directly affects the world in which I live too.
Adele Brand, Surrey, UK
Edward Meardon: "How do you propose to do that (control the human population) , short of Hitler-like final solutions?"
You use contraception to bring birth rates below (natural) death rates. No mass murder required! Thankfully it looks like we'll top out at about 10 billion by about 2100 and hopefully we might just manage to feed ourselves. However we can't be too sanguine because this depends on fertility rates continuing to drop. If they don't, you will eventually get your "final soulution" but it won't be gas chambers: it will be global famine. I know it hasn't happened yet and it probably won't at 10 billion but only an idiot would believe we can go on multiplying forever. If you don't believe we can go on multiplying forever then you must accept that we've got to get our birthrate down. If fertility rates don't start dropping as hoped, coercion (to reduce the birth rate NOT increase the death rate) may be our only hope.
SP, Swansea, UK
Why are people so scared of change? I think this article is spot on - I like meat - but could reduce my intake significantly and not really notice the difference. In fact have all these other individuals - these negative ostriches with their heads in the sand, ever really tried to change all that much in ANY direction - I agree with the bike comment as well - for me it is not so much about global warming as living n an energy overdraft that is rapidly running out.
Joanna - I'll take the big food challenge.
David Mackman, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Quite so. Ms Lumley is one of my two favourite actresses, a profession she should stick to, rather than talk such utter tosh about a topic that seems to her to be emotive. She should consider the means of reducing livestock numbers first - slaughter is ugly no matter how you say or do it.
John Howells, Belgrade, Serbia
So now the other shoe drops! First, it's global warming and it's hysterical predictions of the planet literally bursting into flames if we don't dramatically curb our lifestyles. Now, it's calls for voluntary (and then later mandatory) restrictions on meat consumption until we are living a virtual stone-age lifestyle! There will always be people demanding that we change our lifestyles, until it meets THEIR approval - and when we resist, they will pass laws to restrict our right to choose! Is this modern democracy?
As to the calls for population control. How do you propose to do that, short of Hitler-like "final solutions?" That part of the discussion of population control is always left out!
Edward Meardon, Ottumwa, Iowa, USA
It has become politically incorrect to say it, especially if you happen to be white........but the problem is .......over population.
David, Nassau, Bahamas
Joanna, you're a wonderful actress. Unfortunately your article reads like an evangelistic rant against everything you don't personally agree with.
Look at it another way, if we all fight global warming by switching off our television sets and playing scabble then the next time you issue a diatribe like this people will say "Joanna who? ...". On the other hand we could switch to bicycles so there is no need for car insurance or its consequent advertising.
One more point. Before quoting reports, please quote the credentials and interests of those who are paying to publicise their views. A report issued by a thinly disguised off-shoot of the animal rights movement is hardly an unbiased piece of science.
KR, Stockport,
So first she goes on about the various negative impacts of livestock farming, including the threat from an increase in soya plantations in the Amazon etc...
And THEN she suggests that we should all take to eating TOFU or TEMPEH... which are both made from SOY BEANS! I rest my case. - What would Patsy have had said about this article?
Hopeless, Workington, UK
i thimk thats the worst thing i have ever herd do relize how meny people would loose ther jobs Amaricas ecconomy would crash to the ground!!!! the earth has sevived worst thing that cows......just let it go god will not let us suffer on earth it will all end befor that is over
Cam Carter, miller , U.S.A MO
James in Adelaide, reel your neck in. It should automatically pull your head from the sand you've buried it in. As for Clarkson, a prime example of human arrogance, you two really should get together. You have much in common.
Maurice Brennock, croydon, england
For all too long food especially meat from supermarkets has been too cheap, this is mainly cheap imports with no tracability from South American countries, which as Joanna states is being rapidly deforested to make way for yet more cheap imports to fill the shelves of our supermarkets. Possibly eat less meat, but try chosing local good quality produce and then you reduce air miles, support british farming to become less lintensive by paying a fair price for their product so all round a win win situation. All this from a Organic Farmers wife hard at work for someone else as the farm can't afford to pay me for all my bookwork/sheep and cattle rounding up and all that goes with it!!
Susie, Northumberland, UK
Adult human beings who imbibe the milk intended for the babies of other species is the problem, while refusing in many cases to feed their own babies with what is natural, human milk.
M Stoneman, Ipswich, UK
Livestock account for far more of our global climate change emissions (18%) than transport. A balanced vegan diet has an eco-footprint about 1 global hectare smaller than the typical UK diet, and causes roughly 1 tonne less in CO2 emissions too. For people, animals and the environment, we need to eat lower down the food chain. You can find out more about how tasty and nutritious vegan food can be from us at The Vegan Society: http://www.vegansociety.com/
Amanda Baker, Birmingham, UK
"I prefer not to eat food that has a face"
So do I, that's why I cut it off first.
Seriously, since when has an actress (good though she is at that job) ever had the expertise to pronounce on C02 & agriculture. Since never.
William McIlhagga, Ilkley,
So, Joanna is now an expert on saving the world. Why doesn't she team up with Al Gore and the scores of celebrity has beens that need to generate a new income.
Ever heard of the Ice Age.....my car or eating habits didn't cause the ice to melt then. The sun is getting hotter and irrespective of what we try and do to stop pollution etc we are fighting a losing battle.
Right, where's my steak gone.
Mike Jones, Farnborough, Hampshire
Terry, Chris, James and Robbins all make good points. Literally EVERYTHING you or I do generates CO2. Elimination of carbon releases would require the destruction of all life on Earth, and the planet intself, because it also releases carbon.
We should moderate our emissions for a number of good reasons, but lets be realistic about our impact, and understand it's ok to fly away on holiday, drive to see friends, heat our houses, and eat a hearty steak at the end of the day.
Richard Clark, Milton Keynes, England
Experts say, there is no nutritional justification for the amount of meat consumed all over the world. What used to be a luxury for all of humanity, has become a routine necessity. Impact of large-scale animal-farming for food affect not merely global-warming but is associated with "species-jumping" of viruses and bacteria, e.g. "bird-flu". Appaling ill-treatment of animals lessens our standing as humans. Many parts of the sea are now bereft of fish. That may never have happened in this planets history. Our love of meat and fish, must rank with our love of the motor car and our love to wage wars - we are not yet ready to recognise the harm in any of these..
Kris iyer, Wellington, Newzealand.
Why do people think that a diet without animal products is going to lead to being 'waifish' and osteoporific? There are generations of healthy people who have followed a vegan diet for many years and are neither. Plant nutrition provides a completely balanced diet without the need for animal products and there is further evidence that it is one of the healthiest diets, low in saturated fats, high in protein, energy,vitamins, minerals and the beneficial fats and oils. Calcium is not just found in dairy products and there is no evidence that vegans are short of calcium or 'osteoporific'. Vegan food can be 'fun' and deicious as much as any other kind of food. Apart from the health benefits there are obvious proven links between food production and its impact on the environment - there will come a time when even the 'Jeremy Clarksons' of this world will have to sit up and take notice..........................
Annette, Colchester, United Kingdom
To those who say that they need meat to be healthy, let me just say one thing: Elephants are vegetarian. Big and strong is what they are, weak and puny never.
Tina, Duesseldorf, Germany
Surely population reduction is really the only way to achieve the goals set by the Green Police? Why doesn't anyone promote that? Oooh, fewer people to vote and pay taxes - could that be it?
P Robbins, Cornwall,
Ms Lumley, YOUR view may be that it is right to encourage people to be osteoporotic, grey, waifish shadows. The rest of us will continue to eat a healthy diet of meat, without checking with you or anyone else in the climate police.
Honestly, we can't fly, we can't drive, we can't eat meat or dairy. Where will this end? Climate change is simply an opportunity for people to make new arguments in favour of outdated ideas. What fun spoiling! What would Jeremy Clarkson say?
James, Adelaide, Australia
Oh dear- I fear chris judd's rather petulant response; "people with limited education..etc" is undermined by the amount of grammatical and spelling errors which litter it (use of Canadian English notwithstanding). Also I cannot be ALONE in getting PUT OFF by people who use CAPITAL LETTERS to make their point- it's as if WE ARE TOO STUPID to understand the emphasis of their argument OTHERWISE.
Keith, Newcastle, UK
It's too bad that people with LIMITED EDUCATION are allowed to lead people astray on the internet!
The author obviouly never was told that the "dirty 30's" were the result of "monocultural grain production" when after a dry spell with little organic matter left in the top-soil; the topsoil just BLEW AWAY in the wind. Many farmers lost their land and their livelyhood; many thousand acres of productive farmland has NEVER regained productive status.Any old farmer will tell you that the most efficient (least cost and least ENERGY COST) crop of corn or grain; is that which follows "plow-down" (that's a field of pasture or hay; which monogastrics; like MAN cannot live on but cows, sheep, and other rumenants can thrive on) Any old farmer can also tell you that the most natural and effective fertilizer for a grain crop is good old manure (properly composted; either liquid or dry leaves no smell; and is readily available to the crop.)Rumenants can thrive where crops cannot be harvested at all
chris judd, Shawville, Quebec
Spread the word of the new gospel before we get mislead into thinking that transport is to blame. We are meat free 3 or 4 days a week in our home for the reasons stated in this article and still trying harder.
sam, Shanghai,
This whole story is rubbish as global warming is a natural occurrence and has happened many times in the past along with global cooling. Man and his efforts are to feeble to effect the climate of the earth. Those who believe man has such power are believers that man is greater than he is. Wake up this is a hoax designed to separate you from your money.
Robert Hill, Jr., Pensacola, FL
The basic problem is not cows or corn or icebergs. It's that elephant in the room called over-population.
Terry Dell, Weybridge, UK