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 | 2022-06-28
Centre contributes to Vatican conference on climate resilience
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences will bring researchers, policy makers and faith leaders together to understand the scientific and societal challenges of climate change
Research news | 2022-06-27
Sand extraction: the biggest resource crisis you’ve never heard about
Sand is the world’s most exploited mineral but little is known about the industry behind it
Research news | 2022-06-23
What's at stake at the UN Ocean Conference?
We asked some of our experts why all eyes are turned to the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon
Research news | 2022-06-23
Where to find us at the UN Ocean Conference
Where and when to find us during the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon, Portugal 27 June - 1 July
Research news | 2022-06-21
Ocean research lacks female leaders
In senior academic positions women are still struggling to break the glass ceiling, new study shows
Research news | 2022-06-20
Malin Jonell awarded for novel approaches to Baltic Sea research
Centre researcher Malin Jonell has won the Östersjöakuten award 2022 for her research contributions to the Baltic Sea