[ad_1]
According to a major new analysis, world meat consumption is expected to have a devastating impact on the environment. According to a major new analysis, meat consumption is expected to increase rapidly as the global population increases and the average income of individuals increases. "What's happening is a big concern and if meat consumption goes up again, it will be massively," said Professor Tim Key, an epidemiologist at Oxford University and co-author of the review. . "On a general level, you can say that eating large amounts of meat is bad for the environment."
The review, published in the journal Science revealed that high levels of meat consumption consequences, resulting in an increased risk of colorectal cancer and possibly cardiovascular disease.
The average amount of meat consumed per person per year has almost doubled in the last 50 years, from about 23 kg in 1961 to 43 kg in 2014. The increase in average individual consumption of meat means that total meat production has increased much faster than the population growth rate, having increased four-fold or five-fold since 1961.
It appears that some countries have reached consumption rates are decreasing slightly. However, middle-income countries, especially China and other East Asian countries, are still experiencing an increase.
According to a recent UN study, world meat consumption is expected to increase by 76% by mid-century, with a doubling of poultry consumption, a 69% increase in beef and a 42% increase in pork.
"It is hard to imagine how the world could provide a population of 10 billion people or more with the amount of meat currently consumed in most high-income countries without substantial negative effects on the world. environment Science The paper emphasizes that in general terms, meat production – especially livestock – is linked to much higher carbon emissions than vegetables, fruits and cereals. Livestock production currently accounts for 15% of all anthropogenic emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide).
Livestock is also a major contributor to biodiversity loss, as wild forests and countryside are devoted to farmland for the production of animal feed. And the drainage of rivers and lakes to irrigate land used to grow corn and other grains used for animal feed already has a considerable impact on water resources, according to the analysis.
The paper also highlights potential negative health consequences. diet with high meat content, but judges that these are less dramatic than the environmental impacts. "People should not think that meat is like smoking – it would be nonsense," said Key.
Since 2015, processed meat has been classified by the World Health Organization in a group of 120 known carcinogens. According to Cancer Research UK, if no one ate processed or red meat in Britain, there would be 8,800 fewer cases of cancer each year. However, there are also potential disadvantages to some vegetarian foods that the meat could be replaced by.
"There has been less consideration of the potential disadvantages of eating less meat," said Susan Jebb, professor of food and health Oxford and a co-author. "The health benefits depend on whether you replace the meat, if you replace it with cheese for lentils, the effects will be very different."
Scientists also do not know what it is than meat that is detrimental to health. One possibility is that iron is bad – in this case, both processed meat and red meat would be involved. Other potentially carcinogenic compounds include nitrates used in many processed and salted meat products.
– Guardian Service
Source link
