4 Key Take Outs from the Lifetime Climate Impacts of Diet Transitions Report

Earlier this week we shared a report titled Lifetime Climate Impacts of Diet Transitions: A Novel Climate Change Accounting Perspective. The report was authored by a number of leading climate, nutrition and environmental scientists from the University of Oxford, Massey University, University of Auckland, the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, the Riddet Institute, Victoria University of Wellington Te Herenga Waka and the lead author Jonathan Barnsley from the Ministry for Primary Industries.

If there was one clear observation from the response the paper received from the public, it was that the science is complex. So, based on the conversations we’ve seen, and the questions being asked we have put together four key take outs from the study, which we feel answer your questions.

1) The science explained

What the modelling in this paper suggests is that if you were to turn meat-free, compared to what Kiwis are typically eating currently, over your lifetime, the global warming impact from all your activities would only decrease by 3-4%. At the same time there is a higher chance of missing out on key nutrients such as iron.

The reason for this is methane – which is the main greenhouse gas emitted from meat production (namely cow burps) ,– is a short-lived gas. Whilst methane does have stronger warming impact than other gases such as carbon dioxide, it only stays in the atmosphere for around 7-12 years on average compared to hundreds if not thousands of years for carbon dioxide.

So, let’s play this out for a hypothetical person, we will call them Jamie. At the age of 25 years old, Jamie decides meat will no longer feature in their diet. Over the next decade or so, Jamie will have a greater reduction in their diet-related warming impact. However, due to the accumulation of carbon dioxide created by the Jamie’s diet and other activities over their lifetime, the lifetime benefits from cutting meat will be reduced to a net lower warming impact of just 3-4%.

Now, we should be clear that reducing global warming impacts should never be dismissed because they are ‘not that big’, but what this research does is put into context an individual’s dietary lifetime warming impact in relation to their overall lifestyle choices.

2)  Going meat-free is not a silver bullet

In recent years, the discussion around meat consumption has become somewhat emotive. An oversimplified and an often-touted soundbite that ‘giving up meat is the best thing you can do for the planet’ has left many people feeling confused about a much-loved element of their diet. This research bursts the bubble of that misrepresented soundbite.

In reality, one cannot simply pull the levers of a single part of a food system in an effort to solve one issue i.e. climatic warming, and not expect there to be consequences elsewhere. As this research identifies, of the micronutrients assessed, a lack of iron was particularly highlighted. Given this is already the most prevalent nutrient deficiency in the world and an issue among many of our New Zealand young children, adolescents and women, is this an issue we should be further exacerbating?

Much-loved Kiwi foodie Nadia Lim recently pointed out, if she were to crop all of her Otago farm in grains or vegetables, then she ‘would be losing a lot of precious carbon (and therefore resilience) from our soils. A lot more fertiliser would need to be applied too, since cropping and horticulture uses far more synthetic fertiliser than sheep farming does’. As Nadia eloquently points out, swapping out one food production for another is not the answer to all our issues.

3) What can I do?

One of the key recommendations we kept hearing from the co-authors of this report was eating to the dietary guidelines was a win-win for both personal and planetary health.

To put it simply, the Eating and Activity Guidelines devised by the Ministry of Health are an evidence-backed guide to what you should be eating. To surmise, eat a variety of nutritious foods including plenty of vegetables and fruit, whole grains, some dairy and some protein which, if you enjoy it, can include meat.

By taking a varied approach to the foods you eat, you will maximise the amount of nutrients your body absorbs and based on this research, you will have a similar climate impact as going meat-free.

4) Continuous improvement, not perfection

Let’s be honest, meat is a much-loved part of many people’s diets. Our connection to meat stretches far beyond its nutritional credentials to something warmer and fuzzier. So, can we have the freedom to enjoy meat?

Like virtually every human activity on earth, animal agriculture has an impact on the environment. It’s an inescapable fact that as an industry, we fully acknowledge.

That’s why, at every step of the supply chain, the New Zealand red meat industry is improving the way we produce, process and sell beef and lamb.

Whether that be the recent greenhouse gas calculator developed to help farmers measure and report on-farm GHG emissions and off-setting (sequestration), or meat processors signing up and implementing Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority energy reduction actions or retailers using fully recyclable plastic meat trays. These are just a handful of examples to demonstrate that we’re on a journey to a better place.

So, do we have freedom to enjoy meat?

The answer is an emphatic yes.