It is fascinating how there were several news angles that could have been taken from the WWF report, but the media picked up on the bad news/more sensationalist headline that "a vegetarian diet can harm the environment". Actually, the report was looking at the greenhouse gas emissions involved in the UK food system, and the scope for reducing them by 70 per cent by 2050.
The Meat Free Monday article gives a much more balanced assessment of the WWF report. The report said that livestock rearing alone accounts for 57 per cent of harmful emissions from UK agriculture. It indicates that a vegetarian diet (with dairy and eggs), a 66 per cent reduction in livestock production consumption, and technologies to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from soils and methane from ruminants, had the potential to reduce direct supply chain emissions by 15-20 per cent.
According to the Meat Free Monday article: the report pointed out that any change in meat consumption patterns would have to be managed carefully. Less animals would mean less animal feed, for example, freeing up arable land, but how we compensate for a diet lower in meat, eggs and dairy could also have an adverse effect in terms of emissions. A switch from beef and milk to tofu and quorn could mean we need more arable land, not less. Emissions could be reduced nine per cent with a switch from red to white meat, the report also said, but would see an increase in the import of soy meal for poultry feed.
The report warned that "careful assessment" would be needed to avoid "unintended consequences", however. If the livestock industry contracted and collapsed entirely then the UK would be dependent on low-cost exports from other countries - it might make us healthier, but the environmental problems associated with meat production would simply be shifted elsewhere.
