A study by researchers from Chalmers University of Technology and the SP Technical Research Institute in Sweden has shown that the only way for the European Union achieve its greenhouse gas emission targets would be by dramatically reducing consumption of beef and dairy products. Suddenly eating beef does not seem so cool. On the upside, meat can still remain on the table, but only the pork, and chicken variety because of lower emissions.
This study is fodder for the vegan groups and the beef industry in the EU would prefer to consign it to the dustbin of environmental history. But the evidence is out there and though the food industry has remained quite isolated from the greenhouse debate, thanks to the focus on emissions from vehicles, coal-fired power plants and cement units, beef in now part of the greenhouse debate.
Here are some statistics that will numb beef eaters and
leave them with a bad taste in their
mouths. The red meat requires 28
times more land to produce than
pork or chicken, 11 times more water
and results in five times more
climate-warming emissions. Another
way of looking at it is that it
requires 160 times more land to produce
a calorie from beef than staples like potatoes, wheat and
rice. Also beef production per calorie produces 11 times more
greenhouse gases. Here is the clincher: if all the land used to
grow crops for cattle were diverted to producing food for humans
we would be able to feed an additional 4 billion people.
The good news is that we will be able to feed 9 billion people
in 2050, provided beef eaters in the EU and US alter their diets.
Hardline groups in the country which want cattle slaughter
to be banned might want to sit back and pat themselves on
the back, but the equation in India might not permit it. Compared
with the EU and US, per capita consumption of beef in
the country is quite small, but the problems are different. India
is home to the largest bovine population in the world and
they emit more greenhouse gases than the transport sector.
They also consume copious amounts of food and water. If one
adds the per capita consumption of beef in India, which is 12
gms per day as compared to 300 gms in the US or EU, one realizes
that not eating beef is not a solution to the problem here.
While the West has a diet problem, India has a cattle population
problem and both need vastly different approaches.
The other reason why the US and EU have to maintain large
numbers of cattle is these two regions’ appetite for dairy products,
which is the highest in the world. Given this combination
of beef and dairy consumption, it is difficult to see the world
moving to vegetable products. Even though this is desirable,
it is too complicated an issue and government intervention is
more likely to mess it up further. The European Union therefore,
is faced with a strange dilemma; should it give up cars or
beef in order to achieve its greenhouse gas emission targets?
It’s a tough choice and an area where governments would fear
to tread. After all, food is one ingredient that can bring down
governments
