Emissions claims too simplistic on meat, politicians claim

The All Party Parliamentary Group for Beef and Lamb inquiry has called for better understanding of the issue on a scientific level and a standard model to measure carbon sequestration to ensure the industry and policy makers are able to meet their obligations towards protecting the environment.

The inquiry, which took place over four months, took written and oral evidence from both industry and environmental groups. Neil Parish, MP, who chaired the APPG, said the investigation had revealed the understanding of what makes up the carbon footprint of grazing livestock is not very deep at all.

"This is alarming, given the seriousness of issues we face, namely food security and environmental sustainability."

He said grass-based production was not given enough credit: "There is all too often a negative focus on grazing cattle and sheep being blamed for carbon emissions from the agricultural sector, with no account taken of the positive environmental impact they have. For instance, managing the landscape and protecting biodiversity."

As a result, the messages that promoted meat avoidance were unreliable, he added: "Currently, we are not fully able to quantify the carbon footprint of red meat or the foodstuffs that some would seek to replace meat with. As such, the ‘eat less red meat to save the planet’ message is far too simplistic to be credible at this stage and lacks the scientific grounding to be robust.

"Without solid scientific foundations in place we will not be able to have an informed debate and generate policies to enable the industry to meet its environmental challenges. Hopefully this report will contribute towards stimulating the debate and moving it up the political agenda."

Environmental groups accepted that there was work needed to improve the understanding of emissions and the measurement of carbon, but said there was still no doubt that livestock was a "major" contributor to emissions.