Max Tallberg & Petri Lahtinen
Since the current environmental problems are mostly connected with global processes and means of production, states, and companies are the most central agents in the fight against ecological crises such as climate change. Most greenhouse gas emissions are connected with the production and activities of both multinational and domestic enterprises which has not as of yet been regulated sustainably. On the level of global politics international climate protocols and treaties have been negotiated since the 1960s, when transboundary environmental problems became the matter of common knowledge. Since 1992 the UN has maintained a Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is aimed at fighting climate change. Currently, the latest global treaty is the Paris Agreement adopted in 2015: it is an international, legally binding convention, which engages the nations of the world – whose participation is essential – to limit global warming well under two degrees Celsius. Apart from international politics, the individual can have an impact on the environment through activism and political advocacy but especially through consumer choices. The food choices the individual makes here play a central role. In this text, we emphasize the impact of vegetarianism in responding to ecological crises. Vegetarianism can refer to the more traditional abstinence from the consumption of meat and seafood, but also a stricter vegan diet, where one abstains from all products of animal origin.
First, it is important to note that industrial animal production is a significant source of greenhouse gases and other detrimental environmental effects. It has been proposed that the current animal production generates more greenhouse gases than the emissions of transportation and traffic combined. Worldwatch Institute has presented that animal production leads directly or indirectly to 51 % of the global greenhouse gas emissions. This calculation is reached, when it includes forest clearance into fields producing fodder and grazing land, the maintenance of animals, respiratory gas exchange, rumination, and defecation of grazing cattle, the productization and slaughtering of animals, and the transportation, storage, and manufacturing of the final product. On the other hand, the number 14 % has also been brought up in this context. The “real” number depends on what is included in the calculations. Either way, it is evident that animal production plays an important part in greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, according to predictions as the living standards in the Global South rise there will be an increase in the consumption of meat products in the future; it has been estimated that the consumption of meat in these countries will increase by 76 % by 2050. This is naturally a huge problem. Between 2010 and 2050 the environmental effects related to food production may rise by an amount somewhere between 50 and 90 % unless the current trajectories are intervened sufficiently and early enough.
The number of animals in industrial animal production is immense. It has been estimated that 60 % of the mammal population of is part of this system. In 2020, 74 billion animals of this 60 % were raised up to be slaughtered for human needs. The share of poultry here was over 70 billion. In addition, approximately 33 – 50 % of all land area suitable for the farming of animals raised to be slaughter is currently being used for this purpose. About 80 % of this land area is used as grazing fields or farmland for animal fodder. Thus, the industrial animal production is using 27 % of all land area on Earth. The current industrial production of animal protein has been enabled largely by the fact that fossil fuels and types of fertilizers and pesticides maintained by fossil fuels have freed up cultivated areas and increased yield, and therefore food has been able to be wasted in increasing animal production. Furthermore, industrial animal production leads to deforestation, desertification, species extinction, and the loss of biodiversity. The more farmed animals there are in industrial production, the more land is required for fodder crops. There would be an immense amount of resources saved in the world, if humans consumed this nutriment themselves. Most of the soybean crops, for instance, end up as animal fodder at present. At the same time, as humans could utilize soy directly as a nutriment, the farming of soybean forage could be reduced. This would be important, as this leads to deforestation and biodiversity loss especially in rainforest areas, which are especially important to the climate. Soybean forage is not used only in meat production but also in the fodder used to feed cultivated fish.
Currently, a large amount of food is produced that is eaten by animals that end up themselves as human food. At the same time, a large part of this energy is being used up in the animal metabolism, instead of in the production of muscle tissue or milk. 65 % of the increase in land use since the year 1960 is connected with animal production. Food production is also behind the extinction of species, and especially in South America the cutting of rainforests poses a serious threat to the future of many species. It has been presented, that as much as up to 30 % of the loss of biodiversity is linked to food production. The production of one kilogram of beef cattle takes up around 8 – 11 times more fodder than the production of pork or poultry. The greenhouse gas emissions of beef cattle are also about 150 times higher than in the case of soy products. Also, pork and poultry production – which are the least polluting meat choices – produce 20 – 25 times more emissions compared to soy products. Most of the protein fished from the seas is energetically as expensive as meat and is thus as dependent on cheap fuel. Essential here is the sustainability of the marine fauna and the preservation of the ecosystems maintaining them. The present overfishing means that the marine fauna does not regenerate and thus the sensitive marine ecosystems suffer. Fish farming is also an inefficient method of intensive food production as soy fodder as well as other fish are used to feed the fish that end up on the plate of the customer. The fish farms located in the sea also lead to ecologically harmful eutrophication.
Animal food production also consumes a lot of water, most of which is currently used in the production of beef cattle: the production of one kilogram of beef requires 22 000 liters of water whereas a 200-gram steak requires 2000 – 4400 liters. Fresh water is one of the scarce natural resources in the future and this will lead to the migration of millions from areas becoming unviable, as well as increasing competition for the decreasing water resources. The scarcity of fresh water leads to societal unrest and this has already been a contributory factor in various conflicts and wars. Thus, wasting water in the production of animal protein is not sustainable from the standpoints of ecology and global justice.
It is worth remembering that the consumption and production of animal protein are not the only reason for the ecological crises and neither is the reduction of them the only solution. Nevertheless, at the same time changes in these consumption patterns would be an efficient way of affecting environmental problems. It has been estimated, that if the global population switched to a completely vegan diet, the greenhouse gas emissions related to food production could be cut by 70 % by 2050. It has also been suggested, that more than 76 % of agricultural land could be used differently if meat and dairy consumption ended. The size of this land area is larger than the area of Africa. Some of the freed-up land area could be utilized for the production of plant-based food, which could be used to feed the current population. In any case, one has to consider that the industrialized agriculture production has partially made the current population growth possible. From the perspective of strong sustainability and just transition, two changes must occur in the production of food: first, we must cut ourselves loose from the current industrial agriculture, and second, the global population growth needs to come to a halt. The global food production needs to be made more sustainable by switching to agroforestry, crop rotation, compost fertilization, minimizing the use of water and pesticides and by improving the soil texture. These changes would also lead to the fact that agricultural land could function more efficiently as a carbon sink.
Taxing animal protein would also be an efficient way of reducing its consumption. Different food items could also be categorized based on their environmental effects, so that products that are more harmful would have higher taxes. At the same time, the taxes on plant-based protein should be lowered, especially through lowering their value added tax. This would mean that ecologically sustainable food would be a viable option also for people with lower income. These kinds of taxes are difficult to implement globally, but on a national and regional level they would be more feasible. The problem here, however, would be that other areas could act as free-riders and pollute more. Currently, the problem is that harmful environmental effects cannot be observed in the price of different food products. Meanwhile, many of the current detrimental environmental problems connected with consumption are largely linked to the consumption of the wealthiest individuals. This would mean that taxing meat would not necessarily lead to significant results, as long as the consumer habits of the wealthiest are not altered. An ethical tax, which would consider the inherent value and well-being of the animals, has also been suggested. Products that are linked to the cruel treatment of animals would thus be taxed higher. However, it is highly questionable whether the suffering and slaughtering linked to the production of animal products can be measured or motivated in terms of money. In any case, it is evident that many different actions are needed to make people consume less meat. One obvious way is to affect the attitudes of people. However, as longs as meat consumption is predicted to increase, also the need for stricter measures to limit it remains. The reduction of food waste is also an important measure as approximately one third of the food produced ends up wasted at present.
Technological solutions also have their potential. Meat produced in laboratories has gained a lot of attention, even though its utilization is only in the early stages. This solution would in any case not produce emissions that would be comparable to the current ones, or animal suffering. It is, however, important to keep in mind that technology created by humans, as well as factories and different systems, can never replace those natural resources and processes, that the consumer society is destroying. In this regard, it is pertinent to ask how sustainable the production of artificial meat can be made. The consumption of insect protein has also been suggested as one solution. This protein has high food value, and it burdens the environment less on many levels when it is compared with the traditional production of meat products. However, the production of insect protein consumes almost the same amount of energy for a kilogram produced as does the production of beef. Meat substitutes, where meat is replaced by a plant-based product such as soya, broad bean, seitan, or quorn, also constitute a solution. Thus, it would be important that current financial support directed at the meat industry would be steered to develop all these alternative solutions.
Another way to change people’s consumer behavior relating to this theme, would be to emphasize the suffering of animals that are part of the animal production industry more strongly. Often these animals are treated very cruelly; they, for instance, cannot move properly or are force-fed. The slaughtering process is also difficult to justify from an ethical perspective that takes into consideration the suffering of the animals. Humanity should not see itself as superior compared to other animal species. Instead, we should regard animals as sentient beings that have an intrinsic value and that cannot be killed and taken advantage of. From a historical perspective, a vegetarian diet has been motivated around the world precisely by appealing to the agency of non-human animals as sentient beings, who have natural capabilities of pursuing and living a meaningful life. When modern customs are examined in the future, the animal industry might very well be highlighted as an activity, that has been unequivocally wrong. Even if the suffering of non-human animals would not be directly linked to environmental problems, the agency and capabilities of these species should be taken into consideration in the pursuit of global justice.
Ecological factors, as well as the suffering of animals, are obvious reasons to reduce the consumption of animal protein. Health effects, however, also give reasons for making these kinds of changes. Most of the vegetarian diets are healthier than diets based on the consumption of meat. Vegetarians usually have lower cholesterol levels, blood pressure and fat percentage. All these are, in turn, linked to a longer life expectancy and a smaller risk of many chronic diseases. Vegetarians also have less heart problems and deaths related to them. The same applies also to cancer, even though the difference is not considerable. It has also been noted that vegetarians have a lower probability of getting type 2 diabetes. Red meat, as well as processed meat, are, in turn, connected with health problems. From a health perspective, it is evident that it is not vital for a human being to eat meat. A vegetarian diet, that is healthy vegetarian, is sufficient from a nutritional point of view. For millennia most human beings have eaten only vegetarian food or only small amounts of meat.
Food is, however, also linked to many cultural and social factors and this leads to the difficulty of changing these habits. Thus, it is unlikely and unreasonable to assume that the whole of humanity could in the future transition to a vegetarian diet. It could also be argued that vigorous countryside requires a sustainable coexistence between humans and domestic animals. Likewise, many indigenous peoples have been able to hunt and fish while sustaining the animal population. In the end, the production of animal protein specifically on an industrial level is not sustainable. For instance, the relocation of meat products from slaughterhouses and butcher´s shops to market halls and grocery shops has made the consumption of meat an everyday habit in many countries. One could, however, also see that the consumption of meat might not be as culturally dominant as is often held. By educating people of the environmental and health benefits of a vegetarian diet, as well as of the animal rights, a transition to a plant-based diet could seem a sensible solution to many, and thus be made easier. Currently, we are also not as aware of the connection between animal production and emissions as we should. This knowledge should be spread, as well as promote research on how these emissions could be cut in the most efficient way.
For all these reasons it should be understood that a transition to a more plant-based diet would be possible and desirable. Even such a transition would be significant from an ecological point of view. At present, many have already reduced the amount of meat in their diet, which gives reason to think that this trend might accelerate in the future. When the environmental effects of eating meat and other animal-based products would diminish, we could have more leeway to develop innovations in fields, where ecological actions are harder to make today. It is possible already at present to decrease the amount of meat and animal products that we consume, and there are many arguments in favour of this change. This opportunity should be utilized.
Sources:
Arra, Venni. (2019). Evaluate the Strengths and Weaknesses of Plant-based Diets as a Solution to Climate Change.
Haavisto, Olli-Pekka (2022): Vesi, uskonnot, uusliberalismi ja alkuperäiskansat. Elonkehä 3/2022.
Heikkurinen, Pasi & Ruuska, Toni (2021): Kestävän elämän manifesti. Vihreä Elämänsuojelun Liitto ry, Elonkehä-kirjat.
Koistinen, Mari (2020): Soija syynissä: ruuaksi, rehuksi vai boikottiin?
https://wwf.fi/uutiset/2020/01/soija-syynissa-ruuaksi-rehuksi-vai-boikottiin/
Lähde, Ville (2013): Niukkuuden maailmassa. niin & näin -kirjat, Tampere.
Poore, Joseph & Nemecek, Thomas. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science (New York, N.Y.). 360. 987-992. 10.1126/science.aaq0216.
Sabaté, Joan & Soret, Sam. (2014). Sustainability of plant-based diets: Back to the future. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 100. 10.3945/ajcn.113.071522.
Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0
Vinnari, Markus & Tapio, Petri. (2013). Sustainability of diets: From concepts to governance. Ecological Economics. 74. 46-54. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.012.
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production
https://wwf.fi/uutiset/2020/01/soija-syynissa-ruuaksi-rehuksi-vai-boikottiin/
https://ym.fi/pariisin-ilmastosopimus
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/ClimateChange/materials/KMBusiness.pdf
https://enpos.weebly.com/uploads/3/6/7/2/3672459/energy_consumption_in_animal_production.pdf
https://www.asyousow.org/blog/2020/8/31/sustainable-agriculture-solution-industrial-agriculture
https://lutpub.lut.fi/handle/10024/156620
https://www.eatlove.is/blog/benefits-vegetarian
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/becoming-a-vegetarian
https://www.healthline.com/health/becoming-vegetarian
https://vegaanihaaste.fi/myos-kalankasvatus-tehotuotantoa
https://ucfavva.wixsite.com/theroot/post/the-environmental-cost-of-food
https://ucfavva.wixsite.com/theroot/post/enough-land-for-the-growing-livestock-population
https://ucfavva.wixsite.com/theroot/post/are-we-losing-species
https://ucfavva.wixsite.com/theroot/post/who-is-to-blame-for-deforestation
https://ucfavva.wixsite.com/theroot/post/what-does-the-future-of-food-look-like
