In recent years, the term ‘Veganuary’ has been coined for the first month of the year to encourage people to go vegetarian or vegan, or at least to be more conscious of their meat consumption. As the month comes to a close each year, many people immediately switch back to their previous diets as they discover how much they miss the greater freedom of choice, but many others stick to their new lifestyles for the sake of the environment and newfound health. Some children are raised without fish; some are permitted to eat red meat once a week; others simply pick up the food habits of their parents and peers. The world is, and forever will be, full of different people eating different things. There are many issues and controversies to unpack when considering which dietary choices and restrictions are best for you, the animals that produce the meat and dairy products we ingest, and the planet — and unfortunately, it has historically been very difficult to pinpoint a ‘correct’ answer that suits everybody in accordance to their morals, religion, and personal preferences. Today, the question of what is the right thing to do is as pressing as ever, particularly when it comes to the issue of climate change and the wellbeing of our environment.
First, it must be considered that humans are a stubborn race. It is nearly impossible to dictate what a person should eat and drink, especially if they live in an area of the world where choice is abundant when it comes to diet. Here in the UK, we have a climate that is suitable for growing all sorts of (seasonal) fruit, vegetables, grains and other crops, as well as bringing up livestock, and as such our supermarket shelves are always full with catering options for all. To attempt to limit this choice so far into our development as a species and culture as a first-world capitalist nation would be met with serious backlash. However, this is also what makes choosing to go vegetarian, vegan, gluten-free, sugar-free or more so accessible in the UK and many other countries across the world. It is also this wide variety of choices and our nature as a species that makes it easy to forget about the bigger picture — what works for other people, as well as the future of the planet’s finite resources.
Unfortunately in places such as Greenland (which is a remote island entirely composed of harsh, cold terrain that makes growing their own produce impossible), such choices would be considered more of a luxury, especially taking into account the high prices of certain foods that have to be imported. In these kinds of freezing and isolated locations, people may need meat as a means of survival — it is the most cost-effective and natural method to hunt their own food. For thousands of years, certain tribes hunted species such as whales and polar bears which provided food for multiple people over extended periods, and this way of traditional living which carries on today has long since been ingrained in their culture; most of the time, every part of the animal is used up too (furs to make clothes, bones for broth, etc.). With Greenland’s population at a mere 50,000, these practices don’t have much of an impact on animal populations, and certain quotas have been introduced to ensure endangered species face lesser risk (Poulsen, 2021). With all this in mind, asking a native Greenlander to vegan would seem more than problematic. However, places like Greenland are disproportionately affected by climate change — the melting of polar ice caps has a direct effect on the populations of the animals they hunt, and therefore the food chain and supply. Polar bear numbers will not be decreasing because of hunting traditions, but rather due to loss of habitat as the ice melts and the land shrinks.
For the rest of the world, it is even more complicated. With the aforementioned abundance of choice and gentler climates in many First World countries, the purchase of animal products is typically treated as more of a personal matter. As most individuals around the world do not experience climate change quite so acutely, they gather their information secondhand from books and the internet instead of firsthand through watching the environment change. This becomes an issue of almost too much choice — there are a seemingly endless amount of sources constantly contradicting one another, and it is hard to know which one is the most accurate. Freedom to make our own choices is a fundamental right, but the guilt that may accompany following one population’s way of life instead of another’s is never-ending. Is a ban on hunting the species that feed tribal communities going to save animals from the brink of extinction, or is it taking away a valuable food source for people who would otherwise go hungry? Is it better to shop at the nearby butcher’s to reduce food miles and support local farmers, or cut out meat altogether to eliminate that moral dilemma?
Food miles is a highly-debated topic and refers to the distance that food has to travel from its source to the supermarket or other establishment it will be sold in. It is an important area to consider, as international travel — whether it be for tourism or transporting food — correlates to greenhouse gas emissions, since the transport we use to do so is mostly not environmentally friendly. According to Farmison & Co’s Instagram account (@farmisonuk) (2022), a British ribeye steak will travel a maximum of 430 miles from point A to B, and in a ‘carbon neutral courier’ too. Alternatively, the example used to put this into perspective is an avocado, which will travel 6300 miles to the UK from Peru, making for a much more complicated journey and contributing to more greenhouse gas emissions from the vehicles transporting it. However, the argument that food miles should be the main focus in limiting diet-based environmental issues is flawed — not even taking into account animal welfare or equal access to nutritious food based on the resources available in each country and culture, the overall effect of eating a steak versus an avocado on the planet is much worse. According to data sourced from Kurzgesagt’s YouTube channel (which they obtained from Our World in Data) (2021), beef produces a staggering 99.48kg of greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of a food product, far above the second biggest culprit which is lamb and mutton at 39.72kg. Looking down the list, the first food that isn’t an animal product to show on their graph is rice, which contributes just 4.45kg of greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of food product.
Figure 1: Greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of food product, Kurzgesagt (sourced from OurWorldInData).
Additionally, a quick look at the impact of different modes of transport on the environment can further prove the point. ‘For example,’ writes Kurzgesagt (2021), ‘shipping one kilogram of avocado from South America to Europe generates about 0.3 kilograms of CO2 equivalents in transport emissions and around 2.5 kilograms overall — while one kilogram of beef from your local butcher will come in at 18 kg in CO2 equivalents at least.’ While avocados did not feature directly on the first graph, all other plant-based foods were shown to have much less impact on gas emissions, and so it was obvious to see the flaws in Farmison & Co’s argument. This example is added to focus on and analyse their argument directly.
Figure 2: Transport modes vs kilogram of CO2 equivalent per tonne-kilometre, Kurzgesagt (sourced from OurWorldInData).
So is it possible to buy meat and animal products while promoting the wellbeing of the environment? The answer cannot be a simple yes or no. While these graphs make it clear to see the pros and cons of one area, there are many things to consider when thinking about what is ‘best’ for the planet as a whole, and the people and animals that reside on it; such data cannot reasonably be applied in places like remote Greenland or in fact force-fed to any one individual on Earth due to the value we place on free will and choice. It can be difficult to look beyond ourselves and our own bubbles, to picture the melting ice caps and the dwindling numbers of certain species because of it, to spend our lives debating what the most conscientious choice is when doing a weekly shop. It is harder still to insist that meat is inherently bad for the planet despite any scientific evidence when it is, after all, such a widely-consumed food group that provides a decent amount of calories and beneficial nutrients per serving. Perhaps that is why people love to participate in trends like Veganuary, when for a short while you can feel like you are doing something ‘right’ — but at the turn of the month, as the world’s perspectives shift in constant motion, you get to make a different choice.
References
Farmison & Co (2022). Instagram post titled ‘know your food miles’ [online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/CYUOo50oa_G/?utm_medium=copy_link (Accessed 30/01/22).
Kurzgesagt (2021). Is Meat Really that Bad? 30 November. Available at: https://youtu.be/F1Hq8eVOMHs (Accessed 30/01/22).
Poulsen, R. W. (2021). ‘Greenland Votes to Move Whaling Away from Tourists’ Eyes’, Hakai Magazine [online]. Available at: https://hakaimagazine.com/news/greenland-votes-to-move-whaling-away-from-tourists-eyes/ (Accessed 30/01/22).
Comments