What is the “correct” method for meat?
There is no doubt that industrial animal agriculture carries a laundry list of sins; Greenhouse gas emissions, loss of biodiversity, deforestation, water pollution and labor rights violations are just a few examples. But there is also evidence that some can practice regenerative grazing improve biodiversity, improvement Soil health and—potentially—carbon sequestration. Not only that, animal husbandry is also significant cultural value and may have eaten animal products Health benefits.
For some people, giving up meat or even all animal products is the only sensible course of action. But for those who don’t want to go that far, “less” and “better” may seem like a realistic solution: the meat doesn’t need to be cut out completely; Choose quality over just cut quantity. However, dig a little deeper and things get very confusing again. How low is low? And how do we determine which meat is better?
Are chicken and pork the most climate-friendly options? Is eating locally or organically better for the planet? What effect does choosing one meat or a meat substitute over the other have on my physical health? To be able to weigh all these questions and accurately calculate what kind of meat and how much is “right” for us to eat, the average consumer would need far more information, time and energy than anyone in a typical grocery store. It can feel like we’ve failed before we’ve even started.
Here’s the thing: There is no right answer when it comes to meat. And that’s okay.
These questions and the warring data points inspired us to create Less and better?Our new podcast series from Farmerama Radio. Concerned and troubled by the lack of nuance around this important issue, we wanted to try a different approach—one that seeks to illuminate the values and priorities that underlie even the most purportedly scientifically motivated positions.
For many people, the answer is simple: just go vegetarian, or at least vegetarian. Demonstrate research Foods that are free of animal products One-quarter climate influence From the production of meat-filled meals – less water and land use and less carbon emissions. Rather than wrestle with the “best” meat to eat, many choose to forgo it altogether.
But not everyone can do that. Meat holds cultural significance for many, and it may Has nutritional benefits. There are also differences between heavily processed meat products and unprocessed meats, both in their effects on the body and the climate. So, for those unable or unwilling to give up meat completely, eating good quality meat and eating less of it is the best approach. But there are still questions. How few or how good the answers to the “right” question depend not only on a dizzying array of complex data but fundamentally on what results you think are worth pursuing. Some argue That intensive factory farms, in general, produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than extensive pasture-fed systems. Others strongly disagree With that, but say, for the sake of argument, we accept it as true. At first, it seems simple: “enhanced” meat is factory-farmed meat. Now we just need to figure out how much “less” we should eat.
But what if we think the most important thing is the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem health? Or water pollution? Or workers’ rights? Or animal welfare? We address each of these issues in our series, and each of them points to a possible different answer. On that last point, for example, animal welfare scientist Professor Francois Wemmelsfelder argues that recognizing farm animals as sentient beings “may mean that large-scale industrial farming systems are not ethically possible.”
Wrestling with these ideas and questions is a valuable and valid exercise; It’s admirable to make decisions about your consumption and purchases that reflect your ethics and values. But, like comparing apples to oranges, trying to find the perfect answer is an impossible task. It may even have negative mental health consequences. Studies have shown in the field of consumer behavior We may experience negative emotions when trying to make choices that force us to “emotionally understand.” and, High level of eco-concern It is reported among people with more environmental awareness.
What does “less” and “better” mean to you? Also depends What interests, values, and biases have your particular view of how the world can and should be. effort Low and well boiled down to the simple question of CO2 emissions per unit of livestock or ignoring the political question of the relative technical merits of soil carbon sequestration versus cellular agriculture. Who are the benefits of such questions? Whose power? Who has access to “good” meat? And what kind of future are we building?
Ultimately, we don’t think it’s possible to give a simple, silver-bullet answer to the question of what constitutes “low” and “good” meat. But we think that’s kind of the whole point. When it comes to less and better meat, we think the real question we need to ask is good for whom and what?
Listen to the podcast series Less and better? Farmerama Radio is here.
