Where's The Beef?

“What’s more important to you, your pork chops or people’s safety?” The New York Times notification popped up on my phone, reminding me of the current public health emergency caused by mass infection and the subsequent closing of meat processing plants across the United States.

Recent news is littered with charts indicating the rapid spread of COVID-19 through the densely packed and generally unsafe working environments of controlled feeding and meat processing operations. With plants closing and production in a standstill, American access to meat – a dietary staple – is at grave risk.

Lack of meat in the supermarket aisle isn’t the only consequence of production slow-down. With procurement blocks, cancelled orders, and restaurants closing en masse, millions of pounds of meat are going to waste, increasing the already-significant burden of food waste in this country. For our meat dominated menus, this is a food supply train-wreck. In a nation that consumes, on average, 50 billion burgers annually, or 3 burgers per capita per week, a meat shortage is a tangible disruption to consumer habits. Hitting the mainstream news also sheds light on an industry that operates largely in the shadows. As individuals become increasingly aware of the unhygienic and animal (not to mention human) rights abusing conditions that accompany the vast majority of the meat products they purchase, many are raising the red flag on red meat.

The diminished access to meat in this season begs the question: could the population and the planet be better for it?

Traditionally, when we put an item in our shopping cart, we were likely weighing a number of factors, from taste, to price, to calories, to nutritional composition. Today, however, planetary impact crosses consumers’ minds more than ever before. This is in part due to the popular media emphasis on the looming climate crisis, from student strikes to studies and reports from scientific authorities.

For consumers, it is perhaps easier to ignore the environmental consequences of purchasing habits when supply is plentiful – but scarcity in the era of a pandemic adds a sense of urgency and gives space to reconsider our ingrained behaviours. Compared to the more silent, slow-moving threat of climate change, COVID-19 has an accelerated timeline and consequences that are much more tangible for the everyday consumer. This is why it is imperative that we think critically about the status-quo and proactively decide what kind of world we want to emerge into on the other end of crisis. Will this be an opportunity for consumers to look critically at the evidence around the negative human and planetary health repercussions of animal product consumption? Will we remain blind to the blatant abuses that happen routinely in the supply chain of dairy and meat? Will we force plants to prematurely reopen despite the severe risk to thousands of workers who operate in close proximity in dangerous work environments—and remain relatively powerless to advocate for themselves?

Further, will we finally see the critical connection here? The parallel tragedies that have originated from the unsafe practices of animal confinement and slaughter?

Food for thought. 

The state of affairs today is adding fuel to the fire of animal and environmental activists who seek to educate consumers about the ‘true cost’ of their meat addiction. More recently, doctors and nutrition experts have joined the conversation, releasing study after study after study detailing the carcinogenicity of processed and unprocessed red meat. According to experts at Harvard Chan School of Public Health, processed meat, in particular, is a catalyst for obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and some cancers. Perhaps, then, it may be a blessing in disguise for the American population, which spends $1.65 trillion on chronic illness annually (75% of total healthcare spending), that less meat is being processed today.

Beyond the health of the American population, the health of the planet is at stake. Livestock agriculture account for about 14.5 - 18 percent of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization. According to calculations by some experts, this puts the livestock sector on par with transport. 

Beyond emissions, more than 75% of agricultural land— which already occupies more than half of Earth’s habitable land— is utilized for livestock. Yet, this expenditure only outputs 33% of our global protein and only 17% of humanity’s overall food supply, with a heavy systemic reliance on environmentally damaging fossil fuel energy.

To put that in perspective, eating beef once a day for one year is equivalent to driving 7,196 miles, or 8 return flights from London to Malaga, and consumes the land space of 31 tennis courts.

 From an engineering perspective, this is a massive inefficiency. Especially when you consider the approximately 1 billion people on Earth that go to bed hungry each night. Our generation has a responsibility to protect the food security (or lack thereof) for people today and for future generations in a growing population and a warming planet. In order to do this, business as usual must change.

Fortunately—and almost by design—research has shown that those foods that are most protective for the environment are also the same foods that are recommended for decreased disease and mortality. Diet-related disease is on the rise: Nine of the top 15 risk factors for global morbidity result from poor dietary quality and diseases associated with poor dietary quality, including coronary heart disease (CHD), type II diabetes, stroke, and colorectal cancers, account for nearly 40% of global mortality. This 2019 PNAS study was the first of its kind to map these health outcomes against environmental outcomes for 15 most-consumed foods. The data unequivocally reveal a direct relationship: that that foods with among the lowest environmental impacts often have the lowest relative risks of disease or mortality (and even reveal positive health benefits) and that the foods with the largest environmental impacts—namely, unprocessed and processed red meat— often have the largest negative impacts on human health.

Without action, the world may fail to meet globally agreed-upon climate goals, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Agreement. Without action, today’s children will inherit a planet that has been severely degraded and where much of the population will increasingly suffer from malnutrition and preventable disease.

Luckily, there is a win-win solution for humans and the planet: it begins with limiting our animal product consumption—and perhaps reconsidering re-opening many of these meat processing plants altogether. Supply chases demand, so it begins with our decisions as consumers. We drive the market. As knowledge of the environmental and human damage of meat becomes ubiquitous, it is up to us to vote with our dollar and put our values on our plates.

Let this be a wakeup call that ends injustice, protects the planet, and reminds consumers that they are in control of their own health.

So, next time you’re weighing options at the grocery store, consider a ‘climatarian’ diet. Both of your homes – your body and the planet –will thank you.