|  Login
 WWF study: Vegetarians damage environment more than meat eaters

posted 2/23/2010
(From the London Times)

Becoming a vegetarian can do more harm to the environment than continuing to eat red meat, according to a study of the impacts of meat substitutes such as tofu.

 

The findings undermine claims by vegetarians that giving up meat automatically results in lower emissions and that less land is needed to produce food.

 

The study commissioned by the environmental group WWF, and conducted by Cranfield University, found that many meat substitutes were produced from soy, chickpeas and lentils that were grown overseas and imported into Britain.

 

It found that switching from beef and lamb reared in Britain to meat substitutes would result in more foreign land being cultivated and raise the risk of forests being destroyed to create farmland.

 

Meat substitutes also tended to be highly processed and involved energy-intensive production methods.

 

Lord Stern of Brentford, one of the world's leading climate change economists, caused uproar among Britain's livestock farmers last October when he claimed that a vegetarian diet was better for the planet.

 

He told The Times: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."

 

However, the Cranfield study found that the environmental benefits of vegetarianism depended heavily on the type of food consumed as an alternative to meat.

 

It concluded: "A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK."

 

A significant increase in vegetarianism in Britain could cause the collapse of the country's livestock industry and result in production of meat shifting overseas to countries with few regulations to protect forests and other uncultivated land, it added.

 

Donal Murphy-Bokern, one of the study authors and the former farming and food science co-ordinator at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: "For some people, tofu and other meat substitutes symbolise environmental friendliness but they are not necessarily the badge of merit people claim. Simply eating more bread, pasta and potatoes instead of meat is more environmentally friendly."

 

Liz O'Neill, spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, said: "The figures used in the report are based on a number of questionable assumptions about how vegetarians balance their diet and how the food industry might respond to increased demand.

 

"If you're aiming to reduce your environmental impact by going vegetarian then it's obviously not a good idea to rely on highly processed products, but that doesn't undermine the fact that the livestock industry causes enormous damage and that moving towards a plant-based diet is good for animals, human health and the environment," said O'Neill.

 

The National Farmers' Union said the study showed that general statements about the environmental benefits of vegetarianism were too simplistic.

 

Jonathan Scurlock, the NFU's chief adviser for climate change, said: "The message is that no single option offers a panacea. The report rightly demonstrates the many environment benefits to be had from grazing pasture land with little or no other productive use."

 

The study also found that previous estimates of the total emissions of Britain's food consumption had been flawed because they failed to take account of the impact of changes to the use of land overseas.


  
Copyright 2009 by Prairie Natural Lamb   |  Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use