Beef production drives deforestation five times more than any other sector

22 April 2021

A research published in the World Resources Institute in March 2020 found that two of the main products responsible for deforestation are beef and soy, the latter being used for animal feed. The EU, as net importer of these products, should address the impact of such imports on the environment and on animals to ensure coherence between EU trade policy and the EU Green Deal.

According to a research by Global Forest Watch, the total loss of tropical forest increased by 12% overall between 2019 and 2020. Agriculture is the top source of worldwide deforestation (40%), and  among the top commodity-drivers of deforestation, beef holds the first place. 

Overall, beef is responsible for 36% of all agriculture-linked forest-replacement. The huge responsibility borne by the beef industry is due to the conversion of forests into cattle pasture, which amounted to 45.1 Millions hectares of lands deforested between 2001 and 2015 – a rate that is five times higher than for any other analysed products. 

Soy also ranks seventh in the study, as it is responsible for the destruction of 8.2 million hectares of forests between 2001 and 2015. Soy is widely produced to serve as animal feed, notably in the poultry (37%) and pigs sectors (20%). Therefore, the role played by the meat industry in global deforestation largely exceeds the role played by the beef sector itself.

The findings by Global Forest Watch are deeply alarming, as rampant deforestation has clear impacts on wildlife and their habitats and can lead to the extinction of species that only exist in one specific region. 80% of terrestrial species live in forests, and the world is currently undergoing the sixth great mass extinction of species, which is mainly due to agriculture, according to Global Forest Watch’s report. Deforestation is also a source of many welfare-related concerns. With the increase in wildfires, animals -wildlife, but also pets – are suffering and many do not manage to escape. For the surviving wild animals, many are displaced and will generally suffer from starvation and social disruption.

Whilst hot spots of deforestation vary by sector, the beef industry related deforestation is highly concentrated in the Amazon, which is home to millions of species. In Brazil alone, which hosts the largest part of the Amazon, over half of the deforestation came from pasture in the last twenty years. The responsibility borne by agriculture (including the beef sector) on the Amazon’s deforestation is much higher than in other parts of the world, reaching 56% in 2020 whereas agriculture is generally responsible for 40% of deforestation. 

Considering that agriculture-driven deforestation is permanent (whereas lands that suffer from deforestation caused by fires may regenerate), this adds a sense of urgency for the EU to uphold its sustainable agenda. Mercosur is already the  largest  supplier of  beef  to  the  EU,  accounting  for 73%  of total  EU  beef  imports. If the EU-Mercosur trade deal was implemented as it stands, imports of beef would increase between 30% and 64%. The Ambec report – the impact study commissioned by the French government – concluded that, as it stands, the EU-Mercosur agreement would generate an extra 25% of deforestation in the Amazon in the six years following its entry into force. 

As Eurogroup for Animals has been continuously advocating, the unconditional liberalisation of animal products foreseen in the EU-Mercosur trade deal would fuel intensification of animal farming, which not only is extremely detrimental to animal welfare, but would also highly contribute to fuel deforestation. We thus call on the EU to uphold the objectives of the Farm to Fork Strategy, which are to use trade policy “to obtain ambitious commitments” from partners in key areas such as animal welfare.

The EU must take the opportunity of the EU-Mercosur agreement to negotiate the adoption by Mercosur countries of EU-equivalent legal standards in key sectors (beef, but also broiler chicken and laying hens), as well as in terms of transport, or to agree on conditions to access tariff-rate quotas or liberalisation in animal products, including the respect of EU-equivalent animal welfare standards.

Regards Mark

Thursday 22/4 is the official ‘Earth Day’.

Official site –  https://www.earthday.org/

EARTHDAY.ORG’s mission is to diversify, educate and activate the environmental movement worldwide. Growing out of the first Earth Day in 1970, EARTHDAY.ORG is the world’s largest recruiter to the environmental movement, working with more than 75,000 partners in over 192 countries to drive positive action for our planet. 

Our world needs transformational change. It’s time for the world to hold sectors accountable for their role in our environmental crisis while also calling for bold, creative, and innovative solutions. This will require action at all levels, from business and investment to city and national government.

That’s where you come in: As an individual, you yield real power and influence as a consumer, a voter, and a member of a community that can unite for change.

Don’t underestimate your power. When your voice and your actions are united with thousands or millions of others around the world, we create a movement that is inclusive, impactful, and impossible to ignore.

Every Earth Day can drive a year of energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to create a new plan of action for our planet

About Us

Earth Day 2021: Five ways to help save the planet

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/earth-day-2021-activities-facts-ideas-b1834277.html

Earth Day quiz: How much do you know about climate change?

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/earth-day-quiz-climate-change-b1835097.html

Earth Day 2021 activities: How to get involved from school or home – and what the date marks

https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/earth-day-2021-activities-events-school-home-what-date-meaning-966774

Earth Day 2021: What is Earth Day? FIVE activities you can do

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1426197/Earth-Day-2021-what-is-earth-day-activities-evg

Start by going plant based food; and then move on to more.

Regards Mark

Maybe more on this very soon – have a great Earth Day.

What’s the real cost of meat? New Italian report sheds light on the 36.6 billion euro bill, in terms of damage to the environment and to the health of consumers

19 April 2021

LAV

Press Release

New report on the hidden costs of meat consumption in Italy reveals the environmental and health impacts which fell on society. If we were to include the hidden costs, one kilogram of beef would cost on average 19 euro more.

The environmental and health costs of meat production and consumption are not included in the price paid when buying it. Citizens pay the price of these hidden costs which have now for the first time been scientifically quantified. 

LAV, commissioned the first independent scientific study on the environmental and health costs of meat consumption in Italy, focusing on the most consumed meat in the country: poultry, beef, and pig. The emissions generated at all stages, rearing, slaughtering, processing, packaging, distribution, consumption and waste treatment, have been converted into economic costs for society through a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach.

The environmental costs are obtained assigning a monetary value to the impact assessed via the LCA on 11 environmental categories (1). In one year, the emissions associated with the beef life cycle alone amount to over 18 million CO2 equivalents, with a hidden annual cost of over 1 billion euro. This is equivalent to the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the largest and most polluting coal-fired power stations in Europe. 

In addition to emissions of greenhouse gases, there are also the ones from particulates and acidifying gases in stables, and emissions of nitrates and pesticides into the soil. Together they generate the indirect cost of damaging ecosystems, for example agricultural losses due to acid soils and lack of pollinators due to pesticides.

The healthcare costs are estimated in DALY (Disability-Adjusted Life Year) and are based on the average daily consumption in Italy. Approximately 350,000 years of life are calculated to be lost each year in Italy due to meat consumption. The risks cover contracting colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes, and stroke, and this is likely a conservative estimate, since the damage caused by other diseases associated with meat consumption, such as antibiotic resistance or cardiovascular diseases, were excluded due to the lack of a robust scientific literature. 

In Italy, on a yearly basis, the hidden environmental and health costs amount to 36.6 billion euro with the average cost almost equally divided between environmental (48%) and health costs (52%).

The report shows the unsustainability of meat consumption in Italy and the same situation could easily be mirrored in other Member States. But alternatives exist: 1kg of chicken or pork generates 8 times more costs for society than the same amount of legumes; 1kg of beef generates costs multiplied by 23 times. 

Eurogroup for Animals and LAV, based on the evidence found by the study, believe that it is time to bring forward the hidden costs of meat and implement policies to support the uptake of proteins of plant origin as an alternative to animal proteins. In order to move in this direction, it is essential that the numerous subsidies supporting the livestock industry, in different phases of the production cycle, are soon eliminated.

The results of this study are worrying and we also need to consider the suffering to animals the meat industry creates. In line with the Farm to Fork strategy, the EU has the ultimate opportunity to move away from harmful and pollutive intensive livestock farming systems and transition to a food policy that truly embraces humane and sustainable proteins production. 

Reineke Hameleers, CEO, Eurogroup for Animals

At a historic time when, after the COVID-19 pandemic, attention to the devastating potential of animal food production has increased, and when numerous international bodies warn that an urgent reduction in meat consumption is necessary, the results of this study must represent an inescapable fact for political actors, also with a view to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Climate Agreements. Thinking that we can achieve an ecological transition without immediately initiating a decisive food transition is illusory, or worse, it is false.

Roberto Bennati, General Manager, LAV.

ENDS

Read The hidden cost of meat consumption in Italy: environmental and health impacts (EN)

Read Il costo nascosto del consumo di carne in Italia: impatti ambientali e sanitari (IT)

Notes
1) The environmental impact categories considered are: climate change; ozone layer reduction; land acidification; eutrophication (divided into freshwater and marine); human toxicity; photochemical smog formation; particulate formation; eco-toxicity (divided between terrestrial, freshwater, and marine); ionizing radiation; land occupation; and water consumption. 

Regards Mark

 

The EU-Mercosur trade agreement will fuel intensive farming

14 April 2021

WAV Comment – find out more about the agreement by clicking on this link:

https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/eu-mercosur-association-agreement/index_en.htm

The European Union and Mercosur states – Argentina, Brazil Paraguay and Uruguay – reached a political agreement for an ambitious, balanced and comprehensive trade agreement.

Nearly two years after the end of the EU-Mercosur trade negotiations, the European Commission finally published the related final Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA), which confirms the findings of the draft SIA published in July 2020: if ratified as it stands, the agreement will fuel intensive farming, which is detrimental to animals, people, and the environment.

This SIA was released as the ratification of the EU-Mercosur agreement is for now uncertain due to the various concerns raised by civil society organisations. The European Parliament and several Member States, including Austria and France, have pledged not to ratify the deal “as it stands”, mainly because of the significant negative impact the deal will have on deforestation. 

In this context, the SIA tries to defuse some of these concerns by downplaying the impact the deal will have on the expansion of agriculture, and therefore on deforestation. Indeed, the SIA recognises that, in the beef sector, “EU  imports  from  Mercosur  will  increase  in  both  scenarios  (…) but that most of  the deforested  area  is  used  for  low-efficiency  cattle ranching”. Hence,  the SIA suggests that “there  is  great scope  for  expanding  production  by  intensifying  beef  production  in  these  areas  without  inducing deforestation”. However, fuelling the intensification of animal farming is extremely detrimental to animal welfare, but also to people and to the environment as intensive farms often not only rely on crop-based feed, whose production fuels deforestation, but also generates high levels of air, ground and water pollution.  Furthermore, the SIA seems to ignore that, according to a research by Global Forest Watch, the impact of the beef sector on deforestation is five times higher than any other industry, and deforestation rates are increasing worldwide. For instance, in Brazil alone, over half of the country’s deforestation over the last twenty years came from the beef sector, mainly due to the conversion of forests into cattle pasture. As a reminder, the Ambec report – the impact study commissioned by the French government – concluded that, as it stands, the EU-Mercosur agreement would generate an extra 25% of deforestation in the six years following its entry into force. 

The SIA also draws worrying conclusions concerning the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapter. It recognises that the potential  impact of  TSD provisions are uncertain,  “insofar  as  they  remain  contingent upon  implementation  in  good  faith  of  all  parties”. The decentralisation  of  environmental  regulation in  key countries like Brazil  can  increase this uncertainty. Hence, the environmental concerns are not likely to be addressed unless there is unilateral EU legislation guaranteeing imported products are deforestation-free, or that EU standards, including  animal welfare standards, apply to imported products.   

We regret the late publication of this SIA, which according to the Commission’s own policy, should have contributed to discussions during the negotiations of the agreement. It is worth noting that the European Ombudsman found that:

“the failure of the European Commission to ensure the finalisation of the sustainability impact assessment before the end of the EU-Mercosur trade negotiations constitutes maladministration” and “risks weakening European and national parliaments’ ability to comprehensively debate the trade agreement”

The European Commission also published a Position Paper commenting on the main findings of the SIA report, but it does not not mention any strategy to address the underlined shortcomings or any next step to be taken. For instance, on the beef sector, it supports intensification of the production, regardless of the very negative impact it would have on animal welfare, public health and the environment. Instead of endorsing intensive farming, which is the main driver of deforestation in the Amazon forest, the European Commission should acknowledge that addressing deforestation cannot depend solely on the political will of EU and Mercosur countries, given the economic weight of the beef sector in Mercosur, and the constant imports of beef and soy from the EU.

We  thus call on the EU to uphold the objectives of the Farm to Fork Strategy, which are to use trade policy “to obtain ambitious commitments” from partners in key areas such as animal welfare, and to take this opportunity to negotiate the adoption by Mercosur countries of EU-equivalent legal standards in key sectors (cattle, broiler chicken, laying hens), as well as in terms of transport, or to agree on conditions on animal welfare and sustainability to access tariff-rate quotas or liberalisation in animal products, including the respect of EU-equivalent animal welfare standards. 

https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/eu-mercosur-trade-agreement-will-fuel-intensive-farming

Regards Mark