If cows formed a country, it would be third in greenhouse gas emissions. Producing a hamburger drains about 1695 liters of water. In addition to increasing polluting gases that influence climate change, cow farming contributes to deforestation and the displacement of rural and indigenous communities. Also, when done on a large scale, it can affect human health.
TDB keeps you informed. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram
Meat consumption is one of the most destructive ways in which we leave a footprint on the planet, according to a study supported by UN Environment.
For example, due to the decomposition of organic matter, livestock farming is one of the main sources of methane emissions, a relatively potent greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. To get an idea of its scope, it is enough to imagine that, if cows were a country, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
But their environmental impact does not stop there and reaches into our forests and our water: South America’s rainforests are being cleared to plant soybeans and create pastures for cattle while, on average, a quarter-pound beef hamburger consumes about 1695 liters of water, depending on where it is made.
Despite these effects, demand for meat is increasing. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Fund projects it will grow by 76% through 2050. “More meat will be consumed than ever before in history, and we will pay an environmental and human price unless change is made,” says UN Environment.
We need to be realistic. Cutting meat out of the diet altogether is not an option for many people.
“We need to be realistic. Cutting meat out of the diet completely is not an option for many people,” says James Lomax, the agency’s sustainable food systems program management officer.
Lomax points out that livestock production is a really important source of vitamins and protein, and generates income for many low-income families. However, small organic farming operations have a very different environmental footprint compared to industrial-type livestock production.
“At the heart of the environmental problem lies in the way meat is produced and, crucially, consumed. We must explore ways to achieve an ecological balance. Reducing the intensive consumption of industrially produced meat is good for everyone and for the planet,” says the official.
UN Environment stresses that the aim is to achieve more responsible consumption. For example, eating a steak or a hamburger from an organic farm once in a while, instead of eating three times a week the version produced in intensive farms.
Not only pollution, but also disease and migration
The massive demand for meat also has other consequences. While animal husbandry occupies about 80% of agricultural land, livestock contribute 18% of calories worldwide.
In addition, feed made from soybeans, one of South America’s largest export products, is causing widespread displacement of farmers and indigenous peoples.
Consuming too much processed meat also has negative health implications. Antibiotics used to raise livestock and keep them disease-free often end up in food and contribute to the development of dangerous resistance to these drugs in humans.
Possible alternatives
UN Environment points out that red meat should be raised more sustainably or be replaced more often by chicken.
Recently the company, Impossible Foods Beyond Meat, received the UN Champions of the Earth award for its research to reduce the basic components of meat to protein, fat, water and minerals by recreating meat entirely from plants at a fraction of the cost to the environment.
The University of Michigan-supported study found that with the water it takes to produce 312 red meat patties, 60,937 “Beyond Burgers” can be produced.
The research claims that, for example, Americans eat about three burgers a week, and if one of them were swapped for the vegetarian version, it would be like taking the greenhouse gases from 12 million cars off the road for a year.