The campaign group says the current debate around meat and livestock has been one-sided, and that livestock’s contribution to biodiversity, bioenergy and the rural economy has been overlooked. “An EU without livestock would not only lose locally produced food, but also essential habitats and biodiversity. It would also mean increased fires, lack of natural fertiliser and green energy, and a rural exodus,” it says.
“The solution lies in a more plant-dominated diet but with a modest amount of high-quality livestock product – which is valued for the key nutrients it contains, its soil-improving properties and the landscape we all want to support and live in,” he said.
In a way, this is the best bit:
“It is well known that a section of the European population over consume animal products, but there is no evidence to suggest that reducing production will lead to any decrease in consumption. The consequences of a drastic reduction on consumption of animal products by replacing them with ‘meat substitutes’ or other activities could well be worse than the benefits of meat consumption, without leading to a significant environmental or health improvement.”
(My emphasis.)
So much equivocation and poor thinking. Of course nobody suggests removing animals from 'rural' areas or fails to recognise the vital ecological role they play. What kind of landscape do we really 'want to support and live in'? I would think that we should make serious changes to the 'landscapes' that we have created, as much about them is awful. Much better ways are possible, e.g. as we would need less land to grow food (permaculture, for instance), we would create re-wilded animal habitats that would be a lot more sustainable than factory farm slurry pits.
Obviously, the rural economy would have to be reconfigured; as it is, much of its former economic model has been dead for decades, anyway.
This is one of the best pieces of spin I've seen for a good while:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/15/dont-blame-meat-for-the-climate-crisis-say-european-livestock-farmers
In a way, this is the best bit:
(My emphasis.)
So much equivocation and poor thinking. Of course nobody suggests removing animals from 'rural' areas or fails to recognise the vital ecological role they play. What kind of landscape do we really 'want to support and live in'? I would think that we should make serious changes to the 'landscapes' that we have created, as much about them is awful. Much better ways are possible, e.g. as we would need less land to grow food (permaculture, for instance), we would create re-wilded animal habitats that would be a lot more sustainable than factory farm slurry pits.
Obviously, the rural economy would have to be reconfigured; as it is, much of its former economic model has been dead for decades, anyway.