The Swedish Board of Agriculture wants Western consumers to cut down on their meat consumption to reduce greenhouse gases, according to a recent report “Sustainable meat consumption: What is it? How do we get there?”
Beef is at the top of their hit list and the report argues it would be easier to feed the world’s increasing population, if western consumers reduce all meat consumption.
According to excerpts from the report’s English summary: “The pressure on the world’s natural resources will be lower if we eat more vegetables and less meat. Reducing food waste, eating smaller servings or eating meat less are examples of ways to reduce meat consumption.
From a health perspective, there is no need to eat as much meat as the average Swedish consumer does today. Instead, by increasing consumption of vegetables, health as well as environmental gains could be achieved.
Nutrient runoff and pesticide use in agriculture is influenced by the amount of meat we consume, from which animals the meat comes and which feed they eat. But reduced nutrient runoff and reduced pesticide use can also be achieved by improving production methods at the farm level.
There are also positive environmental impacts from meat production. Grazing animals are required in order to preserve Swedish semi-natural pastures. These pastures are important for biodiversity and rural landscapes. Further, meat production contributes to jobs on the Swedish countryside. However, particularly for beef there is a conflict of interest between preserving pastures and jobs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It matters how the animals are raised. Free-range outdoor production, where the animals grow slowly, often contributes to higher emissions per kg of meat than intensive confined production. However, here there is a conflict of interest in relation to other sustainability criteria, for example animal welfare. It is therefore difficult to generalize and say that intensive production systems are always better.
Animals living in a good environment where they can perform their natural behavior have better conditions for good health. A high level of animal welfare combined with a comparatively low infection risk contributes to good animal health on Swedish farms. Healthy animals require less antibiotics, which means less risk of antibiotic resistance.
This report is part of a project about sustainable consumption of agricultural products. The aim of the project is to provide and disseminate information about the effects of the consumption of agricultural products on the environment, the climate and the society. The goal is to help consumers make conscious choices.”
Beef is at the top of their hit list and the report argues it would be easier to feed the world’s increasing population, if western consumers reduce all meat consumption.
According to excerpts from the report’s English summary: “The pressure on the world’s natural resources will be lower if we eat more vegetables and less meat. Reducing food waste, eating smaller servings or eating meat less are examples of ways to reduce meat consumption.
From a health perspective, there is no need to eat as much meat as the average Swedish consumer does today. Instead, by increasing consumption of vegetables, health as well as environmental gains could be achieved.
Nutrient runoff and pesticide use in agriculture is influenced by the amount of meat we consume, from which animals the meat comes and which feed they eat. But reduced nutrient runoff and reduced pesticide use can also be achieved by improving production methods at the farm level.
There are also positive environmental impacts from meat production. Grazing animals are required in order to preserve Swedish semi-natural pastures. These pastures are important for biodiversity and rural landscapes. Further, meat production contributes to jobs on the Swedish countryside. However, particularly for beef there is a conflict of interest between preserving pastures and jobs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It matters how the animals are raised. Free-range outdoor production, where the animals grow slowly, often contributes to higher emissions per kg of meat than intensive confined production. However, here there is a conflict of interest in relation to other sustainability criteria, for example animal welfare. It is therefore difficult to generalize and say that intensive production systems are always better.
Animals living in a good environment where they can perform their natural behavior have better conditions for good health. A high level of animal welfare combined with a comparatively low infection risk contributes to good animal health on Swedish farms. Healthy animals require less antibiotics, which means less risk of antibiotic resistance.
This report is part of a project about sustainable consumption of agricultural products. The aim of the project is to provide and disseminate information about the effects of the consumption of agricultural products on the environment, the climate and the society. The goal is to help consumers make conscious choices.”
No comments:
Post a Comment