Meat: The consequences on the Environment

Kara Hall

First Year Experience Natural Resources and Environment 1234

Dean Stauffer
November 9th, 2015

Nowadays environmental turmoil is constantly surfacing in the media, this is due to the fact that
there are many environmental crisiss currently going on. Everywhere, there are sources of environmental
issues and concerns; however, some are more widely addressed to the publics knowledge than others. For
instance, a less commonly reported topic is meat and its effect on the environment. Although some of the
public is aware of the devastating effects meat can have on the environment; however, often others are
completely unaware. Especially in America, where meat consumption is at the greatest much could be
done to solve or reduce the environmental impacts. Currently, the world is seeing an environmental crisis,
and without being fixed will become an even greater issue in the future. Specifically, we need to look at
the contribution meat has in this environmental crisis, looking to see if our current rate and method of
meat consumption is going to push society deeper and quicker into a worldwide epidemic. The effect of
alternative methods of meat production and changing mindsets of consumers will be evaluated.

Gas
Emission

Meat

Price

Inefficient

Consumption
farmers

Alternative
Tax on Meat
Mindset
Reduce
Meat
Consumption
Solutions
Difficult
Unpopul
to
ar
Unpopul
achieve
ar

Solutions

Cultured
Meat
Expensi
ve
Consequence to solution

Legend:

Problem

Solutions

Main cause

Ways to achieve solution

Figure 1. Concept Map

Reasons main cause is a problem

Negatives to solutions

Money and
time to
solve
Efficiently
Produce

Extensiv
e to fix

Expensi
Gas
ve
Emission

There are many factors that cause the negative impacts on the environment through meat, one of
these factors is price. Much of these are in fact due to an increase consumption of meat, making the
demand for other dietary stables less. Due to a shift in consumption towards meat other food, like wheat,
maize, and rice, have significantly increased in price, along with other food staples (Popkin 2009). These
market prices are detrimental to the people who were already struggling to afford the costs of food, and
due to meat, other basics have been forced to raise their prices. However, although price is a concern, one
of the biggest underlying meaning and issue is the increased production of meat due to the demand. An
increased production of meat correlates to more water used, another dire environmental concern, more
greenhouse gas released, and more land used for pastures. Specifically, food production is one of the
highest environmental impacting activities, accounting for 70-85 % of the water footprint and 30 % of the
world greenhouse gas emission. Also, there is also a predicted increase of 70% by 2050 for the
environmental impacts with meat production (Smetana et al 2015). Increased production of meat has
drastic and consequential effects on the environment, especially if the consumption continues in this
upward trend. Solutions to the issue of price are mostly related to decreased consumption because as
demand lessens than the price increases, allowing other stables to become more affordable because their
price would decrease. Referring to figure 1 specifically, all the solutions under reduced consumption
would be applicable towards the issue of price. However, some could have resistance from the general
public. However, ways to change peoples mindsets would be to inform them that current prospective
cohort data from adults in North America and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that
includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity (Singh et al 2015). Through
education, awareness, and benefits of meat reduction the mindset of the public could be successfully
changed, allowing reduced consumption. This is a good solution because it is relatively inexpensive, only
costs really are trying to educate people; however, this option would be problematic if the options and
mindsets of people were not alters, and consumption did not change. Price does not always show the
severity of the problem, but with reduced consumption this can be a solution to the high prices of other
stables.

Another factor that leads to environmental issues is the inefficiency of meat production and
consumption. Meat requires a lot of land and water in order to be produced, all which comes at a high
price to the environment. Specifically, 30% of the land surface is used for livestock production, with 33%
land used for growing feed, and 26% for grazing. Along with that 70% of water of fresh water use and
20% of the energy consumption is all used in some aspect for food production, a large amount specifically
meat. Livestock is 18% of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and 37% of anthropogenic
methane emission. Also, the population is expected to increase from 6 billion to 9 billion people,
accompanying in a rise in greenhouse gas emission of carbon dioxide, and global meat production will
rise significantly too (Bhat and Fayaz 2011). This shows the tremendous amount of energy needed to
produce meat, making it extremely inefficient, and at this rate the energy to produce will just grow as
consumption increases. Not only is it inefficient to produce, but it is also inefficient to eat. By inefficient
meat consumption, this references the fact that meat is relatively inefficient as a source of protein with
regard to GHG emissions as compared to other foods (Dagevos and Voordouw 5). Signifying that many
other foods would be a better source of efficient protein, and do less harm to the environment. So, this
double-whammy of both inefficient production and consumption are really harmful to the environment,
and as meat is such a popular item it makes it that much worse. Simply, this inefficiency can be fixed by
more efficient methods of production. One method of improvement is genetically modifying cattle for
increased growth and emit less GHGs. This can be achieved by changing the feed to include more cereals
and oilseeds, or select cattle that specifically emits less methane, or modify them so they do (Nordgren
2012). This method would still allow the consumption of meat, but make meat production less harmful to
the environment. However, the negatives would be if people were opposed to genetically modifying
cattle. Another method is the vitro production of meat can offer health and environmental advantages by
reducing pollution and land used for production. Also, this method reduces animal suffering and create
sustainable production. This meat is controlled and manipulated to produce favorable conditions (Bhat
and Fayaz 2011). In vitro meat production is not at the capability to mass produce meat, to meet the
worlds demands; however, with more research it could provide a safe, and enviromentally friendly

solution to producing meat and prepare for the future demands. Inefficiency is a major concern, and costly
to the enviroment, but if production and consumption is made more efficient, the environment would be
in a better situation.
Another issue that leads to these enviromental consequences from meat is the emission of green
house gases. Some reports have shown that livestock are responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas
emissions, far greater than that of transportation (Popkin 2009). For livestock production to be greater
than transportation puts in perspective how large the gas emission is. Also another concerning fact is
methane and nitrous oxide are more porblematic than carbon dioxide, and have greater global warning
potentials, so even small emission is potent (Laestadius 2013). So even if the gas emission of meat
production was less than other areas, it could be more of a problem due to the gas being released, which is
more harmful than just carbon dioxide. In order to stop this, GHG emissions must be reduced by at least
50% by 2050 (relative to 2010) in order to limit the global temperature rise to 2C above pre-industrial
levels based on possible IPCC AR4 scenarios of GHG emissions pathways and associated global
temperature changes (Revell 2015). At the current rate, the global temperature will raise, which causes a
wide spread number of environmental dangers and effects. One way to reduce this gas emission is to look
at the emission intesities of different types of meat, like beef cattle, sheap, goats, pigs, and poultry. Beef
cattle is twice the avergae emission of sheep and goats, eight times greater than pigs and poultry, this
emission is also dependent on region, climate, and productivity too (Revell 2015). If even less red meat
was produced, the emission would be less because red meat requires the most energy to produce it.
Choosing to produce more energy efficient meats would create less gas emission; however, many people
would be unwilling to give up red meat. Another option to reduce the gas emission and negative
environmental impacts would be meat substitutes. For example, the lowest impact was found in insectbased and soy meal-based meat substitues, and the second highest impact on human health is chicken and
mycroprotein-based meals (Smetana et al 2015). By using more energy efficient options, like soy mealbased, insect-based meat substitutes that would greatly reduce emission and the harmful pollutants

greenhouse gas releases on the planet. Also, chicken is relatively lower in emission, making it better for
the environment. So producing more meat-based substitutes or chicken would still lower gas emission,
helping to prevent global warming of the Earths temperature. However, many people would have
negative opinions about eating meat-based substitutes, and unwilling to change their consumption which
could cause difficulties with this solution. Overall, gas emission is an extremely harmful consequence of
meat production and solutions to solve this problem would be to produce meat more efficiently, or more
efficient options.
Lastly, another harmful cause that meat has on the environment is the increased and large
amounts of consumption. Specifically, if the focus is on meat consumption over production then the fact
that the United States has the highest per capita consumption of meat in the world can be addressed. On
average 122.79 kg per person of meat is yearly consumed. Whereas India, with the lowest consumption in
the world, is 3.26 kg per person yearly, and average 40.09 kg per person of consumption in the world
(Nordgren 2012). America has the highest amount of meat consumption per person, which is very large
especially compared to other countries. This consumption and the increase of wealth and development in
countries relates the total gross consumption of meat and dairy products in the higher-income countries
compared with lower-income countries is double and triple the daily intake, respectively (Popkin 2009).
Meaning, that as countries continue to develop and become wealthier, the amount of meat consumed will
proportionally increase with the wealth gained. This will become a major issue because the already high
amount of meat consumed per person will just continue to grow causing dire environmental
consequences. The increase in meat consumption is contributed to a dietary shift away from vegetables
and grains. However, if this change in nutrition occurs it will be much more difficult to meat
consumption. It has become a challenge on how to reduce meat because of the shift towards higher meat
consumption globally (Dagevos and Voordouw 2013). The challenge is how to reduce consumption of
meats because the consumption is on an upwards trend. One way to limit consumption and reduce it is by
applying carbon taxes on meat. Studies, although not in America, has been conducted showing the results
of carbon taxes. In Denmark, the United Kingdom, and France an estimated potential reduction across the

UK of 3% total GHG emissions from a carbon tax which would be imposed on most food in the UK diet.
Investigated was 20% tax on animal products and a 20% tax on food that is harmful to the environment
(Revell 2015). However, these carbon taxes could provide to be a useful method of meat reduction, it has
not been tested in the United States, the biggest meat consumption per capita. In addition, very few
NGOs were promoting national-level policies framed within the context of meat consumption and climate
change. The primary exceptions were Swedish food- focused NGOs and PETA. No other NGOs were
found to be formally endorsing a tax on meat (Laestadius 2013). With the lack of organizational support,
meat taxes would be nearly impossible to become a law, and the government would face great opposition
for trying to implement a tax, making this option less effective. However, with education and
organizations supporting the idea, carbon tax could be implemented. Meat consumption is rising and
action must be taken to stop or reduce it, which could be done by taxing in order to reduce the
consumption of meat.
Overall, the best and most realistic solution to meats negative effects on the environment is
reducing consumption, by changing peoples mindset. I believe it is the most effective solution because
the negatives are able to be overcome with a little effort. Negatives to reducing consumption would be
resistance from the population, which with education and information given to the public could provide
the tools to change publics mindset on meat consumption. Also, the main argument in favor of the view
that we should mitigate climate change byin addition to other measuresreducing meat production and
consumption is that technological solutions probably are not sufcient (Nordgren 2012). At this current
time, in relation to technology, reducing consumption guarantees that the tools are at least available and
achievable, without lots of money and research. To change the mindset firstly [we must] change
ourselves, our motives, and attitudes in a way that is more moral or more altruistic. In this way what is
considered collectively rational would appear rational also to the individua1 (Nordgren 2012). By
demonstrating the values of meat reduction, it can be the tool to start the trend of overall meat reduction.
Meat reduction is not expensive and does not require extensive technology, so if peoples mindsets are

changed, and they are educated on consumption it can be achieved. One way to show the negatives of
meat is the fact that meat consumption is unhealthy due to the saturated fat intake and also how meat
production contributes to greenhouse gases and thus global warming (Wood 2011). Educating people
about these negatives of meat consumption, would help motivate them to change their amount of
consumption. First, changes need to be made to educate the public because environmental NGO staff
have reported the lack of strategies and plans to educate and inform the public on meat consumption and
climate change (Laestadius 2013). Improving the education and knowledge on meat consumption and
environmental impacts, would allow for reduced consumption of meat, and lower the harmful
environmental aspects. One way to do this is by directing attention of politicians and policy makers to
gather support to reduce meat consumption. This can be done through NGO, nongovernmental
organizations, consumers, and innovative business in protein foods (Dagevos and Voordouw 2013). This
solution allows for the cheapest, and best chance of creating a lasting impact on reduced meat
consumption.
An increase in meat consumption is causing an environmental crisis due to the methods of
production and efficiency of meat. This issue, without being addressed, will cause great harm to the
environment and there will be future consequences without solutions. Why does this matter? The
environment would be in turmoil, not only meat would be an issue, but other factors, too. It effects a
widespread range, bringing harm to the global temperature, which then in turn causes harm to wildlife,
water, and much more. When an environmental issue is present, it effects more than a specific topic, but it
is prevalent and will have an effect on virtual all aspects of the environment, having a personal effect on
humans. However, the solutions are present, some with more complications than others, but this problem
is able to be solved. If the problem is solved, future generations will then have the protection from
environmental devastation, so they can enjoy the beauties and wonders of nature. If everyone looks
critically at their own consumption of meat, and assess the environmental impact of their consumption,
adjusting it than the problem can be greatly improved. The world is striving for a sustainable and more

equitable world diet by combining a stabilization and then reduction of globally averaged meat
production per person, while also achieving a much greater equality of access to affordable meat
(McMichael and Butler 2010). So I ask, are you overconsuming? If so, how can you take action to
contribute to reducing meat consumption, and improving the environmental factors?
Referenes:
Popkin, B. M. 2009. Reducing meat consumption has multiple benefits for the world and health. Archives
of Internal Medicine. 169:543-545.
Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A., and Heinz, V. 2015. Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most
known meat substitutes. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 20:1254-1267.

Singh, P. N., J. Sabat, and G.E. Fraser. 2003. Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in
humans? The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 78:526-532.

Laestadius, L.I. 2013. Encouraging reduced meat consumption to mitigate climate change: Toward an
understanding of NGO campaign and messaging choices in the U.S., Canada, and Sweden. The
Johns Hopkins University.

Nordgren, A. 2012. Ethical Issues in Mitigation of Climate Change: The Option of Reduced Meat
Production and Consumption. J Agric Environ Ethics. 25:563-584.

Bhat, Z.F. and H. Fayaz. 2011. Prospectus of cultured meatadvancing meat alternatives. Journal of
Food Science and Technology. 48:125-140.
Revell, B. J. 2015. One Man's Meat 2050? Ruminations on Future Meat Demand in the Context of
Global Warming. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 66:573-614.

Wood, J. D. 2011. Nutrition and Climate Change: Major Issues Confronting the Meat Industry.
Nottingham University Press, Chicago, 218 pp.
Dagevos, H. and J. Voordouw. 2013. Sustainability and meat consumption: is reduction realistic?.
Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy. 9:2.
McMichael, A. J. and Butler. J. A. 2010. Environmentally Sustainable and Equitable Meat Consumption in
a Climate Change World. 12:170-190. DSilva, J. and Webster, J. The Meat Crisis. Earthscan
LLC, Washington, DC, USA.