Analysis: Why we really DON’T need to eat less meat to save the planet
By SAM TONKIN and JONATHAN CHADWICK and SOPHIE CURTIS FOR MAILONLINE
Getting people to eat less meat is a ‘fantasy’ and the focus should instead be on finding futuristic ways of slashing greenhouse gases in farming to save the planet, a leading expert has claimed.
Professor Mick Watson, who specialises in methane reduction strategies in cattle, told MailOnline that lower-emission cows being bred by geneticists and the wider use of ‘methane inhibitor’ food additives were two effective options.
The latter claims to reduce the amount of the gas that the animals emit when they graze by 30 per cent.
Professor Watson said shifts to plant-based diets could help to reduce emissions but cautioned that there was ‘no sign that it is happening quickly enough to make a difference’.
Much like the government, he rubbished the idea that telling Britons to eat less beef, pork and lamb was crucial for the UK to achieve its net zero target, adding: ‘Consumers are showing no desire to reduce meat and dairy consumption.’
The academic was responding to remarks made earlier this week by Environment Secretary George Eustice, who said the government had ‘no intention’ of telling the public to eat less meat in the battle against climate change.
- Animal farming is estimated to contribute around 5.8 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions
This graphic shows how meat production has grown in the UK between 1961 and 2018
Professor Mick Watson said getting people to eat less meat is a ‘fantasy’ and the focus should instead be on finding futuristic ways of slashing greenhouse gases in farming to save the planet
His comments were in contrast with statements from the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which advises the government on emissions targets.
