Easy on the greenhouse gases: Aspiring greenies should cut down on red meat. A new report says cutting meat consumption by 10 per cent has both health and environmental benefits.

Credit: iStockphoto

Related articles

• Kangaroo meat: much better for environment
• Cancer and red meat link strengthened
• Climate debate hitting New Zealand exports
• Greenhouse gases reach record highs
• Green fallout from nuclear report

SYDNEY: If they really want to offset climate change, carnivores around the world should cut down their meat consumption by around 10 per cent, says a new report.

Greenhouse gases from farming, especially those associated with livestock, currently account for about one fifth of the total emissions worldwide, according to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Global meat production could more than double by 2050, so we have to act now to mitigate the effects say authors of a new study published in the U.S. journal, The Lancet today. They argue that with massive population increases forecast, the average daily global meat intake of 100g per person would have to fall to 90g just to stabilise the present rate of greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenhouse amplifier

"Meat consumption is rising in the world, as lower-income countries become wealthier and develop a consumer preference for meat-eating," said epidemiologist and lead author, Anthony McMichael of the Australian National University (ANU), in Canberra. "[This] is amplifying the human-induced greenhouse effect. There is a need and opportunity to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas production per unit of meat production," he said.

About 80 per cent of total agriculture-related greenhouse gases come from the methane produced by belching and farting cows, sheep and related ruminants. Transporting grain and animals, clearing land for pasture, and the release of nitrogen from fertilisers, account for some of the remainder of the emissions.

The authors argue that the environmental burden should be placed on consumers of meat because the enormity of emissions from the industry cannot be offset by good environmental practices alone. However, McMichael says, the livestock industry can do its part. "The livestock production industry needs to develop, as soon as possible, less emissions-producing methods of production," he said.

Meat consumption varies greatly across nations. Heavy meat-consuming countries such as the U.S. and Australia weigh in at an average of more than 200g per person per day whereas people in many developing nations consume less than 25g per day.

Consuming less red meat, down to 50g or less per day, could also confer health benefits, such as reduced risk of cancer and heart disease. But that doesn't mean everyone should reject a juicy steak. People in developing nations suffering from iron deficiency, as well as those at risk in the developed world, should actually eat more red meat said epidemiologist and co-author Colin Butler, also at the ANU.

Sustainable agriculture

Spokesperson Damon Whittock from industry body Meat & Livestock Australia, based in Sydney, said he welcomes the report, but believes that the industry can combat climate change by developing better environmental practices.

"Climate change scenarios are far from conclusive and it is not possible to conclude that agriculture can't adapt in a sustainable way," he said. "We don't deny that a great deal needs to be done to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock industry but it would take several decades before any noticeable change could take place using the recommendations suggested in the report."

A recent Japanese study in the Animal Science Journal found that the greenhouse gases generated in the production of a kilogram of beef were roughly equivalent to the environmental impact of driving for three hours and leaving all the lights on at home.