Bildtext får vara max två rader text. Hela texten ska högerjusteras om den bara ska innehålla fotobyline! Photo: B. Christensen/Azote
Why consuming meat sustainably is harder than you think
- Eating ‘less but better’ meat could be a strategy for increasing the sustainability of diets in high-income settings
- Lack of clarity on ‘less’, and ‘better’ risks moving meat consumption further away from sustainable practices
- Scientific characterization is crucial for enabling more informed discussion on value-laden discussions and to build consensus
It’s not clear what eating ‘less’ and ‘better’ meat entails. This may have consequences for sustainability
CLARITY, PLEASE: Attempting to eat more sustainably? You may have started buying less beef at the supermarket and opt for chicken instead. Or perhaps you go for certified options or shop directly from your local farmer. Pasture grazed? Yes please! These days there are many options available to the sustainability conscious consumer.
This notion of ‘Less but better’ is widely used by campaigners to guide Western meat consumption towards sustainability. But how much meat should we be consuming, and what is better for people and the planet?
It’s not clear, and this may be harming sustainability efforts.
In a comment in Nature, centre researchers Kajsa Resare Sahlin and Line Gordon together with Elin Röös from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), call for a more informed explanation to consumers of what exactly is ‘less’ and what is ‘better’.
The current definition lacks clarity and may push meat consumption further from sustainable practices.
Kajsa Resare Sahlin, lead author
What is less?
Coming up with an appropriate amount of ‘less meat’ is a challenge as it depends on the aspect of sustainability you’re talking about.
What’s better for the climate may not be better for biodiversity, and what’s better for biodiversity may not be better for health.
This is further complicated by differences in values across the world. Making an integrated assessment considering climate, health, biodiversity, land use, animal welfare and culture is a tight balancing act.
What is better?
'Better’ meat can mean many things. For some this is taste (is it tender, juicy and flavourful?).
For ohers its origin and sustainability and how production practices contribute to animal welfare and farmer livelihoods.
“Scientific characterization of ‘less but better’ is crucial for enabling more informed discussion on value-laden decisions and to build consensus on the meaning of the concept, especially as it gains traction with civil society organizations and policy makers,” conclude the authors.
Sahlin, K.R., Röös, E., Gordon, L. 2020. ‘Less but better’ meat is a sustainability message in need of clarity. Nat Food 1, 520–522 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00140-5
For more information about the publication, contact lead author Kajsa Resare Sahlin:
Research news | 2023-01-19
Time for an "IPCC for the ocean"
Leading ocean experts propose a new International Panel for Ocean Sustainability (IPOS) to build consensus and inform policy
Research news | 2023-01-13
Going beyond dichotomies of local versus global food systems
Food systems are becoming increasingly stressed, but whether they are local or global is not the big issue
Research news | 2022-12-22
Overshooting climate targets could significantly increase risk for tipping cascades
Temporarily overshooting the climate targets of 1.5-2 degrees Celsius could increase the tipping risk of several Earth system elements by more than 70 per cent, a new risk analysis study shows
Research news | 2022-12-22
Human rights gain recognition in new biodiversity framework
The new Global Biodiversity Framework adopted at COP15 takes the important step of recognising the rights of Indigenous peoples, local communities, women and youth
General news | 2022-12-22
Beatrice Crona and Magnus Nyström appointed as new science directors
Shifts in the scientific leadership of SRC in the new year
Research news | 2022-12-20
Biodiversity offsets create dangerous incentives
Biodiversity offset schemes may shift the focus from the actual drivers of biodiversity loss and require more, not less, regulations, argue researchers