To Meat or Not to Meat, that is the question

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

Genesis 9:3, The Bible

Earlier in May this year, Ms Grace Fu, 2^nd Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, spoke with participants at the National Climate Change Youth Conference, and while many were able to forsake their electronic devices and take public transport, far fewer were able to commit to going meat-less to reduce the amount of carbon emissions in our atmosphere. (James, 2014)

Could meat be the new must-have product amongst our youth? Having been recognised as a key source of protein and integrated seamlessly into our diet, it is also important to note that the production of meat in itself has been criticised to be intensive in water and land resources, as well as a significant contributor of greenhouse gases (roughly 18% according to the FAO).

Livestock production accounts for roughly 18% of all carbon emissions, the 2^nd highest behind energy production
(Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/the-greenhouse-hamburger/#3)

In today’s post, I will be focusing on a journal article, entitled The Price of Protein, which I encountered while researching about sustainable consumption. In essence, the article compares the amount of land use utilized and carbon emissions emitted between production methods for protein providing products, comprising of conventional animal meats (red meats, poultry, seafood) along with vegetarian alternatives, such as pulses (dried legume seeds).

Using carbon emissions and land use as indicators for environmental impacts, the report asserts that the production of red meats released the most amount of carbon emissions (up to 150kg CO2 per kg of meat), followed by the production of other animal meats, and finally vegetarian alternatives (Nijdam, Rood and Westhoek, 2012). However, the differences in environmental impacts between red meat production and other animal meat production was suggested to be far larger than the difference between animal meat production and vegetarian alternative production,

My biggest takeaway reading the report was how much potential the agricultural sector has to make its processes less carbon intensive and more sustainable. One particular example to highlight would be on the comparison of cattle farming methods, whereby carbon emissions for methods to produce beef from mixed calves or culled dairy cows in the Netherlands can be up to 5 times less than the conventional extensive ranching methods (Nijdam, Rood and Westhoek, 2012) (for more info click here) But, while traditional animal husbandry can be revamped, it is also important that on the consumer end we curb our demand for meat, to reduce our ecological footprint and push for a sustainable earth.

Dutch farming methods showing emission outputs that are 20% of traditional methods, and generating close to the same level of emissions as other forms of livestock
(Source: Nijdam, Rood and Westhoek, 2012)

What does all this have to do with us then? Singapore might not produce majority of our own meats, yet as a small island state, we stand to lose a lot from rising sea levels as a result of global warming. Our country also shows much potential in cutting down our meat consumption levels, consuming 87kg / capita (AVA, 2014), almost twice the amount of animal food products as compared to the global average of 42kg / capita (FAO, 2012).

However, persuading others to do so on numbers alone is not going to move people by much. Numerical data to fill any knowledge gap about the environmental costs must also be combined with values-based persuasion to appeal better to audiences. (Bubela and Nisbet, 2009). In addition, advocating for a less meat diet solely for environmental benefits isn’t enough to convince Singaporeans, majority of whom are comfortable with consuming meat, rather it has be branded with other social, ethical and economic benefits as well.

Combining hard-to-read data (left) and simple messaging strategies (right) to getting a message across will be the next challenge of less-meat advocates 
(Source: Nidjam, Rood and Westhoek, 2012; http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/04/04/singapore-poster-campaign-wants-public-to-feel-guilty-about-meat-consumption/)

However, change may just be coming, all around the world, bottom-up initiatives are leading the charge for a less-meat diet, proposing meatless days to spread the message. In Singapore, an emerging veggiethursday.sg is a variant of the international movement, and might just be the start of something big here.

-----------------------------------------------------

P.S.
If you are interested in learning more about the challenges of reducing meat consumption, feel free to visit http://blog.nus.edu.sg/xiran/2014/08/18/meat-consumption-and-climate-change/, posted by my friend and fellow BES student, Xiran, who is also blogging about food as well and the environmental issues pertaining to it.

References

Agri-Food and Vetirinary Authority of Singapore , 2014. Statistics - Per capita consumption. [Online] Available at: http://www.ava.gov.sg/Publications/Statistics/#capita[Accessed 30 August 2014].

Bubela, T. & Nisbet, M., 2009. Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), pp. 514-518.

Food and Agriculture Organisation, United Nations, 2012. By the numbers: GHG emissions by livestock. [Online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/[Accessed 30 August 2014].

James, H., 2014. Education, Collaboration and Technology of equal importance - CleanEnviro Summit 2014 Solutions No. 3, Singapore: Novus.

Nijdam, D., Rood, T. and Westhoek, H. (2012). The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy, 37(6), pp760--770