:strip_icc()/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2019/f/N/PF9toaQoAB4xrBZDJqzQ/festival-churrasco.jpeg)
[ad_1]
Many people have promised to reduce their meat consumption – or cut it completely off their diet – in order to be healthier, reduce their impact on the environment, preserve the welfare of animals or combine these factors.
One third of Britons say they stopped eating meat or reduced their consumption, while two-thirds of Americans say they eat less meat. One third of Britons say they have stopped eating meat or reduced their consumption – Photo: Túlio Henrique "src =" Date
At the same time, several documentaries and advocates of veganism have highlighted the potential benefits of less meat. But what are the practical effects of this change in behavior?
Meat consumption worldwide has increased rapidly over the last 50 years. Today, its production is almost five times that of the early 1960s, rising from 70 million tonnes to more than 330 million tonnes in 2017. [19659009] One reason is that there is much more of people around the world. In the early 1960s there were about $ 3 billion. Today, we are more than 7.6 billion.
Although population growth is one of the factors, this does not explain why meat production has increased five-fold.
Another important explanation is the increase in income. The world average has more than tripled in half a century.
When we compare the consumption of different countries, we see that the more meat we consume, the more we consume. There are not more people in the world. There are more people who can buy meat.
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1 /AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2019/c/M/ZAzpR1RF6mlF7MhGf6Wg/dentro-do-conteudo-design-by-freepik.jpg "Les États-Unis et l’Australie sont en tête du clbadement mondial de la consommation annuelle de viande. - Photo: Conçu par Freepik")
Photo: DesignedbyFreepik
The badysis of trends in meat consumption in the world allows to observe this badociation with income.
In 2013, according to the latest available data, the United States and Australia were at the top of the rankings. In addition to New Zealand and Argentina, both countries have exceeded the bar of more than 100 kg per person, equivalent to about 50 chickens or half of a beef.
High consumption of meat can be seen everywhere in the West, and in most Western European countries, consumption is 80-90 kg per person.
At the other end of the spectrum, in many of the world's poorest countries, we consume little meat. The average Ethiopian, for example, consumes only 7 kg, Rwandans 8 kg and Nigerians 9 kg. It's ten times less than the European average.
These figures represent the amount of meat available per capita for consumption, but do not take into account the waste of food. In fact, people eat a little less meat than that.
Middle-income countries stimulate demand
But if countries that consume a lot of meat and low income, little, why do we eat more meat over the past 50 years?
This trend is largely due to a growing group of middle-income countries, such as China and Brazil, which have experienced significant economic growth in recent decades and thus a sharp increase in meat consumption.
While in Kenya, meat consumption has changed little since 1960, however, the Chinese average has increased from 5 kg per year in the 1960s to 20 kg in the 1980s and in recent years. decades to more than 60 kg.
The same thing happened in Brazil, where the consumption of this food has almost doubled since 1990 – surpbading almost all western countries during the same period.
India is, however, an important exception to the rule. While average income has tripled since 1990, meat consumption has not followed the same path.
It's a misconception to badume that most Indians are vegetarians – two-thirds consume at least some meat, according to a survey conducted in the country.
However, meat consumption in India remained low. With less than 4 kg per person per year, it is the smallest in the world. This is probably due in part to cultural factors, including not eating certain animals for religious reasons.
Many people in Europe and North America say they want to reduce their meat consumption, but does it work?
Not really, according to statistics. Recent data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) indicate that per capita meat consumption has increased in recent years.
Although we may think that meat is losing popularity, US consumption in 2018 has almost reached its peak for decades. This is an image similar to that of the European Union.
While meat consumption in the West is stable or slightly increasing, the types of meat consumed are changing. It means less red meat – beef and pork – and more poultry. In the United States, they account for half of the consumption. In the 1970s, they were 25%.
These replacements can be good news for health and the environment. Moderate amounts of red meat and dairy products can improve the health of the population, especially in low-income countries where diets are not as varied.
But in many countries, meat consumption far exceeds basic nutritional benefits. In fact, this can be a health risk. Studies badociate excessive consumption of red and processed meat with an increased risk of heart disease, stroke and certain types of cancer.
Replacing meat or bacon with chicken can be a positive step. This exchange is also better for the environment. Compared to chicken, beef has a three to ten impact on land use, water emissions and greenhouse gases. Pork is in between.
A future in which meat consumption would be sustainable and balanced across countries would require big changes. This would mean not only a change in the types of meat we eat but also in the amount of meat we eat.
Essentially, meat should become more and more a "luxury".
Source link
