‘Bewildering’ to omit meat-eating reduction from UN climate plan

FAO report criticised for 'completely dismissing alternative proteins', such as plant-based meat, to reduce the impact of livestock on the environment

The omission of meat-eating reduction from proposals in a UN roadmap to tackle the climate crisis and end hunger is “bewildering”, according to academic experts.

The group also criticised the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) report for “dismissing” the potential of alternative proteins, such as plant-based meat, to reduce the impact of livestock on the environment.

In a commentary published in the journal Nature Food, experts said the FAO’s failure to include a methodology on how the 120 actions it did support were chosen was “concerning and surprising”.

They called for the next instalments of the roadmap to be more transparent so its recommendations could be assessed against the many scientific studies that have found reducing meat consumption in rich nations would benefit the climate and human health. 

The FAO said the experts’ article did “not make a proper assessment of the report and its ideas”.

Scientists have shown the international climate target, of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, cannot be met without major changes in food production. Animal farming produces 12%-20% of total global greenhouse gas emissions and uses 83% of farmland to provide 18% of calories.

The FAO roadmap was published at the Cop28 climate summit in December and accepts diets “absolutely must [change] for human and planetary health”. 

Many of the FAO’s recommendations are to intensify the efficiency of animal farming techniques. scientists say.

But its 120 actions do not include reducing meat and dairy consumption in nations where most people already eat unhealthy amounts. Instead, many of the FAO’s recommendations are to intensify the efficiency of animal farming techniques.

“It’s very striking: the FAO doesn’t include one of the clearest interventions that would help meet both environmental and health targets,” said Cleo Verkuijl, one of the eight authors from academic institutions in the US, the Netherlands and Brazil.

“Also really surprising is the fact that the FAO completely dismisses alternative proteins,” she said. 

These had been shown to have far smaller environmental impacts than conventional meat but the FAO claimed, without providing evidence, that plant-based meats had “nutritional deficiencies”, the experts said.

A report from the UN Environment Programme (Unep), published in December, said “alternatives to animal products such as meat and dairy may contribute to significantly reducing the environmental footprint of the current global food system”.

Another author, Prof Matthew Hayek, said: “The FAO fails to present any methods or concrete data behind their claim that incremental tweaks in farmed animal management alone can meet our climate goals.

The experts also criticised the FAO report for its failure to mention the “One Health” approach, which connects human, animal and environmental health.

• Guardian