Top 5 Meat and Dairy Companies Match Exxon in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The world’s five largest meat and dairy companies emit the same amount of greenhouse gases as fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil.

This is just one of many shocking numbers from Meat Atlas 2021, a comprehensive overview of the meat industry published by European nonprofits Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Friends of the Earth Europe and BUND Tuesday.

“Europeans today eat an average of 66 kilograms (about 146 pounds) of meat per year per capita, which is almost double what the World Health Organization actually recommends, and this consumption and production still There are also huge social and ecological costs associated with high costs, “said Lisa Tostado, international program manager for climate, trade and agriculture policy for Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, at a public launch event. “And to raise awareness, provide information and also foster a nuanced debate about the breeding center, the Heinrich-Böll Foundation and Friends of the Earth have compiled facts and figures on meat.”

Meat Atlas 2021 launch: facts and figures about the animals we eat

www.youtube.com

Listen to the science

The Meat Atlas 2021 is a comprehensive account of the industry’s impact on the environment and public health, totaling over 70 pages and covering over 30 topics ranging from land use to greenhouse gas emissions. greenhouse through pesticides. These impacts include:

1. Climate change: The food and agricultural sector in industrialized countries is responsible for around a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The livestock sector alone is responsible for 14.5 percent of global emissions: 45 percent of those from feed production and processing, 39 percent of methane releases from ruminants and 10 percent of manure storage and management. In fact, 20 major livestock companies together emit more than Germany, UK or France.
2. Land use change: Meat and milk require more land than any other consumer product, and 77 percent of agricultural land is used for livestock or feed. This means that the expansion of livestock farming is one of the main drivers of land disputes that displace indigenous and traditional communities. The conversion of land to pasture for livestock, for example, leads to at least two-thirds of deforestation in the Amazon region.
3. Public health: The coronavirus pandemic has drawn attention to the dangers of zoonotic diseases, diseases that pass from animals to humans. Almost 75 percent of these diseases can be attributed to wildlife, and land grabbing from the meat and dairy industry increases the risk that humans will face new zoonotic diseases as the habitat is destroyed. The widespread use of antibiotics in agriculture also increases the chances that bacteria will evolve to resist these drugs. Already drug-resistant bacteria kill 700,000 people a year, yet 73 percent of the antibiotics used worldwide are used on animals.

Despite these and other consequences, the consumption and production of meat is on the rise. Meat consumption has more than doubled in 20 years and is expected to increase a further 13% by 2028. Meat production has also followed an upward trend. In the 1970s, it was at one-third of current levels, although it declined slightly in 2019 due to an outbreak of African swine fever.

The increase in production has been made possible by many factors that make this production so problematic: more and more animals are being raised in feedlots instead of pasture. This requires their food to be grown elsewhere, swallowing up more land. Moreover, such overcrowding is only possible with antibiotics to prevent infections from spreading nearby.

With all of this evidence, the report argued that reducing meat consumption in industrialized countries is a case of “listening to the science”, something that governments around the world have yet to do in earnest. relates to this issue.

“We’re not talking about a lack of information and politicians failing to act because they don’t know,” said Christine Chemnitz, editor of the atlas and head of the International Agricultural Policy Division. at the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Dr Christine Chemnitz. launch. “We are talking about a lack of political will to steer or shift the agricultural sector in a direction that respects the climate and biodiversity.”

A 2021 Meat Atlas chart summarizes the impact of meat on the world. Bartz / Stockmar / CC BY 4.0

Race down

A clear indication that we are heading in the wrong direction, Chemnitz noted, is the number of animals slaughtered: 75 billion per year as of 2019.

But the death translates directly into profits for the biggest meat and dairy companies, said Shefali Sharma, one of the report’s authors and director of the European office of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. (IATP), upon launch.

Sharma explained that large companies are so powerful that they can set the prices they pay producers below the cost of production, and governments will directly or indirectly subsidize the difference.

This creates a “race to the bottom of cheap prices, more animals, more production, more profits,” she said.

However, there is a way to get in and out. Sharma recommended a three-pronged strategy:

1. Reorient the resources of industrial agriculture towards more regenerative approaches.
2. Regulate businesses and hold them accountable for emissions generated by their supply chains.
3. Regenerate by switching to agroecology.

Agroecology means growing food in a way that respects natural boundaries while incorporating local and traditional knowledge, explained Stanka Becheva, report contributor and food and agriculture campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, during launch.

“It is truly the only transformative framework that will help move the industrial agriculture sector away from the focus and devastating impacts it has,” she said.

She also called for a ban on factory farming; turn to more diversified mixed crop-livestock solutions; ensure fair prices for small, sustainable farmers; and changing diets to emphasize fresh, local and plant-based foods.

A strong statement

An encouraging indicator cited by the report is the changing attitudes of young people. The atlas highlighted a representative survey conducted by the University of Göttingen in Germany among young adults between 15 and 29 years old. He found that almost 13% of them were vegans or vegetarians, more than double the percentage of the overall German population. About 25 percent more considered themselves flexitarians and ate meat only occasionally.

But what particularly struck Chemnitz was the motivation behind these decisions.

“One thing the young people have made clear is that they see their reduced meat consumption as a political statement,” she said.

Their decision was not based on taste or health, but on opposition to the current functioning of the meat industry.

The survey found that 75 percent of vegans and almost 50 percent of vegetarian respondents saw themselves as part of the climate movement. In addition, young people were in favor of government policies aimed at creating a more sustainable food system. More than 70 percent of them believed the German government should encourage people to adopt climate-friendly diets and ensure that food is produced in an environmentally friendly way.

“This is a strong statement,” Chemnitz said, “and it is a strong call for our government to step up.”