A researcher at the ECI has contributed to a new report which explores the complexities of “better" meat. The in-depth analysis of conventional and alternative agricultural systems found that there is no single way to produce meat and dairy that’s “better” for all environmental, social, ethical and economic considerations.
Jess Zionts, DPhil student, carried out a study looking at stakeholder perceptions and environmental implications of “better” when considering the impacts of meat. She said:
Given what we know about agricultural impacts, the strategies of companies which source meat typically focus on a substantial reduction in meat consumption, particularly of beef and lamb. However, questions remain about how to tackle the emissions from meat that they continue to serve post-reduction. Is there a way to make it ‘better?’”
Jess began the study during previous employment at the World Resources Institute (WRI). She added:
The concept of ‘less but better’ meat has gained popularity in recent years, suggesting that a reduction in meat consumption might justify producing it less efficiently, but “better” with a higher standard of animal welfare."
Additional research from WRI suggests that both reduced consumption and more efficient production are necessary, suggesting the presence of trade-offs. This report quantitatively explores the environmental implications of agricultural practices typically considered to be “better”, and qualitatively assesses stakeholder perceptions of the many different definitions of “better meat.
Jess added: "Ultimately, the report offers a six-step approach that food providers can use when designing meat sourcing strategies to achieve outcomes across multiple priorities.
"Companies with agricultural emissions in their upstream supply chain will need to explore every avenue to reach their environmental targets. This report suggests that deciding on the best option is complicated when it comes to sourcing meat; companies must set priorities on animal welfare and environmental impact based on their own values.
While it is well-understood that less meat consumption is key to reducing emissions associated with products in the supply chain, sourcing even less meat can help balance these trade-offs by creating the “climate space” for less efficient but “better” meat. Additionally, poor visibility within the supply chain can make it difficult to obtain high-quality data.
In addition to changing what is served, engaging with the suppliers to improve both data availability and farming practices are both critical in changing how food is produced. Our analysis shows that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to “better meat,” but it’s important for companies, governments, and consumers alike to consider these synergies and trade-offs as they develop their sourcing strategies.”
Read the report in full: Toward "Better" Meat? Aligning Meat Sourcing Strategies with Corporate Climate and Sustainability Goals