• Advanced search
  • Contact us
  • Print

Food Ethics Council For a fairer food system
info@foodethicscouncil.org | 0845 345 8574

Main Menu

  • Home
    Welcome
  • Who we are
    About us
  • What we do
    Our work
  • The issues
    Briefings
  • Get involved
    Support us
LOGIN OR REGISTER

Quick links

  • Hot topics
  • Press room
  • Business tools
  • Policy resources
Subscribe now!
Food Ethics Magazine
Spolit for choice Vol 8 issue 1.jpg
Think critically
Read our latest issue
You are in > The issues

Meat and livestock

Meat and Dairy - Dairy cow indoors by Compassion in world farming.jpg
Related topics:
Climate change
Consumer choice

Latest work

Parliamentary Briefings
Livestock consumption and climate change: the debate can begin
Livestock Consumption And Climate Change: A framework for dialogue
Farming animals for food


Essential reading

A Square Meal
Animal welfare in a world full of priorities
Climate change and agriculture – time for a new deal?
Livestock consumption and climate change
Livestock consumption and climate change: progress and priorities

The UK Climate Change Act puts in place a legally binding target of an 80% cut in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions against 1990 levels by 2050.

UK livestock production accounts for around 8% of our total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Figures suggest that meat consumption will more than double around the world by 2050, with knock-on effects for GHG emissions, water and biodiversity loss, human health and well-being, and animal welfare.

Ethical Argument

Globally, there is wide disparity in the amount of meat people eat. In the UK we consume 218g of meat per day, compared with 36g in sub Saharan Africa.

Some experts argue in favour of ‘contraction and convergence’ in global meat consumption, towards a world-wide average of 90g per day.

Meanwhile, the UK and other western nations are attempting to tackle the environmental and health issues surrounding meat production.

Pressure is mounting on producers to reduce meat and dairy GHG emissions through technical measures, and on consumers to eat less meat.

But simply cutting back may backfire with unintended consequences to producers here and abroad, rural livelihoods, animal welfare, nutrition, and even climate change itself.
Most ways of reducing emissions imply trade-offs, others could be win-wins.

Increasing carbon efficiency by intensifying production may compromise animal welfare and behavioural freedom. Reducing consumption of some livestock products might threaten farm incomes but be good for consumer health.

Extensive livestock rearing on grasslands could provide UK farmers with an 'added value' product, and reduce GHG emissions through carbon capture in the soil.

There’s no easy answer, but the more options on the table, the greater the scope to find ways of reducing emissions that are fair to all stakeholder groups.

Priorities

  • Producers and government should recognise that techno-fixes can contribute to reducing the UK’s consumption footprint, but won’t reduce GHGs by enough to meet our targets.
  • Producers and government can play a key role in promoting the consumption of ‘less but better quality’ meat and dairy.
  • Government can engage in debate with livestock producers; support scientific research; adapt healthy eating guides to reflect sustainability, and lobby for a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy that supports sustainable farming.
  • Consumers can commit to eating less but better meat.
  • Contact us
The Food Ethics Council is a registered charity — Charity number 1101885