Arguments for reducing meat consumption

There are several popular arguments for reducing meat consumption and selecting alternative protein sources in the modern diet. The first of these is based on a body of research indicating adverse health consequences arising from excessive meat consumption. The second category encompasses all of the philosophical beliefs and convictions in favour of vegetarianism and the promotion of animal welfare. The third argument in favour of reduced meat consumption is based on the environmental impacts of intensive livestock production.

The majority of individuals in developed countries consume greater quantities of animal based protein than currently recommended by the World Health Organisation. This is clearly evident from the average daily intake for adults measured across the United States, Europe, and Australia. Overall estimates from the UK alone exceed four million tonnes of meat each year. That’s approximately 1m tonne of beef, 1.3m tonne of pork, 1.8m tonne of poultry, and 0.4m tonne of lamb and mutton. Only a small percentage of this quantity is raised according to the standards required for organic certification.

For many years, health authorities have warned against the potentially adverse health consequences of excessive meat protein consumption. Epidemiological studies have identified increased risk for a wide range of degenerative illnesses and the World Cancer Research Fund has reported that red meat increases the risk of several cancers. There is no scientific evidence to suggest organically certified meat is less harmful than conventionally produced meat products. Consumer groups do however, frequently advise that organic meat is safer on account of stricter hygiene procedures and careful restrictions against antibiotic and synthetic hormone applications in livestock management.

Animal welfare agencies have increased public awareness of the unfortunate practices involved in the intensive rearing of commercial livestock. These include debeaking and other cruelty associated with battery chickens, notoriously cramped and unsavoury conditions for enclosed cattle, pigs, goats, and other creatures reared exclusively for processing into meat products and manufactured foods. Certain religious and philosophical traditions contend that it is morally repugnant for to kill animals for the sake of food. While most consumers demand some quantity of animal protein in their diet, an increasing percentage of those also wish to be assured that the suffering and hardship of livestock has been minimised or alleviated where possible. Commercially astute farmers have responded by promoting the animal welfare components of organic and free range livestock production.

Intensive livestock production can be harmful to the environment. Scientists have suggested that the livestock industry contributes approximately ten percent of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions. Cattle, in particular, are known to generate significant levels of the methane and carbon dioxide which contribute to global warming. Whether this might be considered a serious reason to reduce meat consumption is yet to be determined. Those extremely opposed to commercial livestock ventures will often claim that no reduction of greenhouse gases can be reliably attributed to organic or holistic based agricultural practices. A more realistic view would suggest that some livestock production is actually beneficial to the environment and important for maintaining a diverse and balanced agricultural ecosystem.