Is The World’s Addiction To Meat Sustainable?

The western addiction to meat products is spreading to Asia with unsustainable consequences for the world’s water supply. With the population booming, we have to reduce our consumption of water-intensive livestock, or billions of mouths will go hungry by 2050.

The western addiction to meat products is spreading to Asia with unsustainable consequences for the world’s water supply. With the population booming, we have to reduce our consumption of water-intensive livestock, or billions of mouths will go hungry by 2050.

Professor Tony Allan, one of the world’s leading experts on water resources, recalls a time when Western society wasn’t so addicted to eating meat. A war-time baby, the 76-year-old geographer remembers eating meat just once a week in the austere post-war years in England. But with the industrialisation of supply chains, millions of Westerners now eat meat two, or three times, a day.

This addiction to animal flesh is not only a major cause of obesity, it is also dangerously wasteful of global water supplies. According to Professor Allan, meat eaters consume far more water than vegetarians because of the quantity of water required to produce meat. Most livestock are fed on food which could otherwise be consumed directly by humans.

Professor Allan’s book Virtual Water, one of the definitive works on water usage, contains a raft of revealing statistics. Meat production and processing is so intensive that it takes 480 litres of water to produce the bacon on your breakfast plate. Beef is even more wasteful of water and it requires 2,400 litres of water to produce the average hamburger. Meanwhile, it takes 70 litres of water for an apple. 

 [quote]“On average vegetarians consume 2.5 cubic litres per day, whereas for someone who eats a lot of beef it’s over 5 cubic litres. The downside of all the meat eating is obesity, as well as water scarcity,” Professor Allan said. [/quote]

His stance on the environmental advantages of vegetarianism was validated by scientists at the Stockholm Water Institute in their recent report Feeding A Thirsty World. The report’s co-author, Professor Malin Falkenmark, said meat eating would have to be reduced drastically, or it would be impossible to feed the world’s population in 30 years time.

Professor Falkenmark wrote: “The analysis showed there will not be enough water available on current croplands to produce food for the expected population of nine billion in 2050 if we follow current trends and changes towards diets common in Western nations, which is 3,000 kcal per capita, including 20 percent of calories from animal proteins.

“There will, however, be just enough water, if the proportion of animal-based foods is limited to 5 percent of total calories and considerable regional water deficits can be met by a well-organised and reliable system of food trade.”

The United Nations’ scientists have drawn similar conclusions. They provoked the ire of meat-eaters with their damning report Livestock’s Long Shadow in 2006. The UN experts said the meat industry contributed to, “Problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity”. They added that the meat industry was “one of the … most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global”.

The UN scientists estimated that raising chickens, pigs, cattle, and other animals contributed to 18 percent of global warming emissions, which was higher than transport (13 percent). In another provocation to the consciences of meat-eaters, the World Bank reported that 90 percent of all Amazon rainforest land cleared since 1970 is used for meat production. Greenpeace has targeted KFC for the destruction of rainforests.

Meanwhile, in Asia, the beefed-up diets of the expanding middle-class could lead to chronic food shortages for the water-stressed region, according to another study by UN scientists, who estimated that the growing appetite for meat would require a radical overhaul of farmland irrigation to feed a population expected to grow to 1.4 billion by 2050.

The report said that Asian demand for food and livestock fodder would double in 40 years, whereas at current crop yields, East Asia would need 47 percent more irrigated farmland, and also to use 70 percent more water. Meanwhile, South Asia would have to expand its irrigated crop areas by 30 percent and increase water use by 57 percent. Given existing pressures on land use, both scenarios are impossible. In South Asia, for example, 94 percent of suitable land is already being farmed.

Despite the strength and urgency of the vegetarian case, Professor Allan warns non meat-eaters against becoming too preachy.

[quote]“Vegetarians have to be careful not to make non-vegetarians angry by becoming righteous and carping at them. They can soon get defensive. It’s best just to present the facts and let them make up their own minds,” he said. [/quote]

Professor Allan said global vegetarianism was an impossible ideal. Instead, the discussion about eating animals needed to be more realistic. Raising cattle for beef, for example, uses far more water than producing pork, or poultry.

“The water footprint of someone eating only poultry is around 3.5 to 4 litres per day. Those who eat beef have a much higher footprint because cattle consume far more water,” he said.

[quote]“It takes 1,000 cubic litres of water to grow a tonne of wheat, whereas it takes 16,000 litres to produce a tonne of beef. That’s partly because lots of wheat goes to feed the animals. Beef ought to be a luxury product priced to reflect its real value and the cost of water.”[/quote]

Professor Lundqvist, who co-authored the Stockholm Water Institute report, further nuanced the debate about eating beef. He acknowledged that animals required more water to produce, especially beef, but he said that meat was produced under vastly diverse conditions in different corners of the world.

“For example, in South Africa, or Namibia, Australia and hilly areas of Switzerland, grazing is the most natural and sensible use of the land. So in those areas they can produce meat and dairy produce without taking resources that could feed humans. Economists would say there are no ‘Opportunity Costs’ because producing meat products is the only sensible use of the land and rain water,” he said.

“It’s also possible to cultivate white meat produce with much less water than red meat, so if we eat the right types of meat, we can use our resources sensibly. It is true, however, that it makes sense to reduce meat consumption from every standpoint – medical, nutritional, resource efficiency and climate change prevention.”

However, Professor Lunqvist said the argument in favour of vegetarianism was only one of the important themes explored in the Feeding A Thirsty World report. Another vital message was about the necessity to reduce colossal food losses in the supply chain. As food accounts for 90 percent of water usage, wasted food means wasted water.

Around a third of food produced globally is wasted. This amounts to around 1.3 billion tonnes of food, around 170-180 kilogrammes per person. The Stockholm Water Institute has calculated that 365 trillion gallons are thrown away with food every year. Nearly 4,600 kilocalories of food per person a day are produced worldwide, but after you account for crops fed to animals, and losses through harvesting and distribution, and in the home, only 2,000 kilocalories remain.

The underlying factors that cause food loss and waste, however, are very different in rich and developing countries. In developing countries, inefficient technology and supply chains are the major problem. More investment in improved storage, transport and cooling infrastructure is essential. It’s also important to increase producers’ access to food processing, packaging and markets. Professor Lunqvist said agricultural commodity producers should also be helped to diversify and scale up their production. 

But in rich and affluent societies, consumers living in a culture of abundance are to blame for most of the waste. OECD households throw away at least a third of their food. The main reason for the profligacy is simply that they can afford to be careless.

[quote]“Food is cheap compared to 20 years ago. Money spent on food is only around 10-11% of OECD household budgets, whereas in poor countries it is as high as 75 percent,” said Professor Lunqvist. “Another reason is convenience and the pace of life. Kids want food immediately so parents cook too much, then put leftovers in the fridge which never get eaten.” [/quote]

The strong link between cheap food and a willingness to throw it away was shown by WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) research into household food and drink waste in the UK, published in November 2011. The study showed that UK food waste fell by 13 percent over a three-year period as food prices went up by 20 percent.  With less money to burn, British consumers were more cautious about throwing away food. But they still discarded 7.2 million tonnes in the year, at a cost of £12 billion, the same amount of money wasted three years earlier.

“People should realise that they are paying twice for food, once in the shops and again in their tax bills. Out of the EU’s total budget of slightly less than €150 billion about 40 percent is used for agricultural policy. Consumers then pay in environmental terms due to greenhouse gases,” said Professor Lunqvist.

Despite the clear messages which come out of the research, we cannot expect politicians to impose regulations forcing reductions in meat consumption, or waste. The responsibility for sensible eating, and therefore water usage, lies with consumers.

Related: Food Waste Fiasco: Breaking The Gordian Knot Of The World’s Food Supply

Related: Infographic: The Global Food Crisis – Food Shortage vs. Food Wastage

“The Luxembourg Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, a major figure in the EU, said that the politicians, ‘All know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.’ That was remarkably honest.

[quote] “In other words, it’s tough for politicians to focus on proposing policies that are not socially acceptable. They cannot regulate consumers. So when people have more money in their pockets, they have to take responsibility for their food habits.” [/quote]

By David Smith, EconomyWatch.com

Get more special features in your inbox: Subscribe to our newsletter for alerts and daily updates.

Do you have a strong opinion on this article or on the economy? We want to hear from you! Tell us what you think by commenting below, or contribute your own op-ed piece at [email protected].