Commentary by Ken Hickson

Food Facts and Sustainability:
Disruption or Distortion?

These were the words and thoughts circulating in my own crowded data centre as I attended important conferences, listened to authorities, attended launches of “new foods”, read scientific papers and evaluated reports coming to me from near and far.

I understand the necessity for some organisations – Government, private sector or NGOs – to put greater emphasis on some “facts” to attract attention and emphasise the seriousness of the situation.

As someone who’s been reporting on, writing about – and even campaigning for – food and agriculture, forestry, climate change and related scientific solutions over the last 50-plus years, even I might be guilty, inadvertently, of a little “distortion”. Maybe a headline or two that highlighted some facts over others.

But I do think conference organisers and those involved in advocating change in any sector which contributes to the current state of affairs on planet earth, needs to take extra care with the facts. Make sure you clearly identify the source of facts or opinion. Go to “authoritative and verifiable sources” whenever possible.

So, when I saw this paragraph in the press release for a major conference I attended recently, not only did I raise my eyebrows, but I raised it with some of the speakers and organisers:

“The livestock industry itself is calculated to contribute to 58% of greenhouse gas emissions, 57% of water pollution and 56% of air pollution caused by agriculture industries globally”.

It referenced an article in The Guardian by well-known Environment editor Damian Carrington (31 May 2018), who in turn was drawing attention to a comprehensive study “Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers” by J. Poore and T. Nemecek in “Science”.

Playing around with numbers/statistics to make a point is an age-old art and science. But to be fair, much more can be achieved if we explain things carefully and accurately.

The event in question – “Disruption in Food and Sustainability” – had very good intentions. The focus of the summit in March in Singapore was on “raising awareness and fostering the growth of sustainable plant-based/alternative protein/clean meat and non- food (packaging) across the value chain with innovation, partnerships and technology as enabler”.

It was the flagship event of the Alliance for a Responsible Future (ARF), a corporate engagement programme in Singapore that aims to create a platform for plant-based companies and organisations looking to be greener and healthier to reach out to the plant-based and sustainability-conscious community.

Nothing wrong with that at all. But let’s put to the test some of the claims as to the livestock industry’s contribution to global emissions of greenhouse gases.

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the livestock sector as a whole contributes 14.5% of total man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with beef and milk production making up the majority of this.

There’s always some variance when it comes to allocating sources of GHG emissions. Timeliness also matters: when were the facts were collected.

I have a 2007 “Atlas of Climate Change” which uses 2000 figures from the World Resources Institute (WRI) to emphasise that the agriculture sector accounted for 13% of global GHG emissions. Land use change and forestry accounts for another 18%.

By comparison, other major contributors are electricity & heat (25%), transportation 12%, manufacturing & construction 10%, other fuel combustion 9%, fugitive emissions 9%, waste 4%, industrial processes 3%, shipping and aviation 2%.

Another illuminating report, from Climate Nexus, which also reference’s FAO information, had this to say:

Animal agriculture puts a heavy strain on many of the Earth’s finite land, water and energy resources. In order to accommodate the 70 billion animals raised annually for human consumption, a third of the planet’s ice free land surface, as well as nearly 16% of global freshwater, is devoted to growing livestock.

Furthermore, a third of worldwide grain production is used to feed livestock. By 2050, consumption of meat and dairy products is expected to rise 76% and 64% respectively, which will increase the resource burden from the industry.

Cattle are by far the biggest source of emissions from animal agriculture, with one recent study showing that in an average American diet, beef consumption creates 1,984 pounds of CO2e annually. Replacing beef with plants would reduce that figure 96%, bringing it down to just 73 pounds of CO2e. Go to Climate Nexus for more on this subject.

What all this goes to show is that we should be telling it as it is. Keep to the facts as they spell it out accurately when it comes to the damage to the planet from agriculture and food production. And all other sources for that matter.

I’ve been very impressed with the EAT Foundation, particularly its recent work with The Lancet on Food, Health and the Environment.

Anyone involved in advocating for change in the way we produce and consume food, should read the full report – “Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems” (Published: January 16, 2019) – which is freely available online. Here’s a taste:

“Food systems have the potential to nurture human health and support environmental sustainability, however our current trajectories threaten both. The EAT–Lancet Commission addresses the need to feed a growing global population a healthy diet while also defining sustainable food systems that will minimise damage to our planet.”
Next month, from 11 to 14 June, the EAT Stockholm Food Forum is being held. This carefully curated event, open to up to 1000 delegates by invitation only, is a gathering of top global thought leaders from science, politics, business, civil society and beyond.