I'm not quite so sure, @editor, that this is quite so controversial as you expect. That meat production is more carbon-intense than that of most plant-based food is a simple, provable fact; it's what we do with that information that makes the difference.

In my opinion, a fair part of the answer is wrapped up in the title you chose for the thread. Currently, there are so many subsidies involved in putting meat on our plates that there is a disconnect between the cost of meat to the consumer and the cost of meat to the environment. It also means there is little financial incentive in researching or exploiting alternatives to meat production. My feeling is that subsidies should be steadily withdrawn (slowly enough that the supply chain can adapt, quickly enough that they have no alternative but to adapt) so that the real cost of meat is exposed to consumers, and meat can be seen once again as the luxury it really is. There are stacks of issues that would have to be addressed in order to do something like that, particularly in adjusting the prices of imported meat so it can't undercut the market, but then are we simply creating the right conditions for black market (i.e. unregulated) trading in a perishable product? Probably.

One article I read some time ago was about a South American initiative about cattle farming. Basically, instead of rearing cattle on vast grasslands, certain farmers were being helped to let their herds roam some forested land, and the cattle were therefore able to eat a much more varied diet. The result, it seems, was that the emitted methane levels dropped dramatically and soil erosion pretty much disappeared. Just one example that it's not necessarily the choice to eat meat that is the biggest environmental issue but perhaps the method of production. Certainly, as a race we're eating more meat than the planet has resources to provide long term so we're going to have to cut down on consumption, but if that can be paired with better and more ethical farming techniques there's a possibility we won't all need to go completely vegan.

As a final observation, I think the key here is that people have easy access to enough unbiased information to be able to make informed choices rather than just picking cheap products off the shelf because it's easy to do. As you say, food for thought.

I think there is zero chance of this government increasing import taxes on food. More likely restrictions will be relaxed to promote cheaper imports via trade agreements. 

Similar relaxation on pesticides, intensive farming in the UK.

I think the current direction of travel is deregulation.

Banning products (e.g.as with new petrol cars) or heavily taxing (e.g. tobacco) are two ways to speed up change. We have a levy on sugary drinks albeit for health rather than environmental reasons so it is not completely impossible to tax certain food types.

In the UK we have reduced our meat intake by 17% in the last decade but many developing countries have increased meat intake as they become more wealthy, e..g China. It is a global issue like a lot of things. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it but context is important. 

Interesting that UK people born in the 1980s and 1990s have the highest meat intake of the UK population. I can relate to that with friends and family. 

Agreed, @Jeff. What can or should be done is a completely different discussion to what will or even might be done. Nonetheless, I do feel that there is a huge benefit in people being able to see the real cost of their food (whatever it may be) in the same way they ought to be able to see where it comes from. It focuses the mind a lot.

@jeff, interesting that you say meat consumption has dropped off in the UK, while meat production is being ramped up. Powys, in Wales, has a massive problem where IPUs (intensive poultry units) have been approved at an alarming rate. On average, most of these factories produce around one million chickens per year, and Powys now produces over 100 million chickens a year. That’s a lot of poor grade, chicken - chickens raised to slaughter in something like 28 days. And that’s just Powys. Shropshire, Herefordshire and Norfolk also have significant amounts of IPUs. The airborne ammonia produced by these factories is ridiculous with lasting environmental impact, and isn’t even a planning consideration. With this kind of production, it’s little surprise that I saw a British, 2.5 kg chicken being sold in Aldi for £2.30. 

@mars Unfortunately we need a lot of food including chicken to feed our large population. We also import chicken in large quantities. We are not self sufficient in food. 

At least these days labelling is so much better so chain restaurants often promote where their meat and fish comes from for example. Having worked in a buying group for one of the largest restaurant chains in the past this definitely was not allways the case that you were eating British meat or fresh fish caught somewhere near the UK. 

Aldi also have free range, corn fed chicken. The choice is there if you can afford it. I am lucky to have been able to retire early and currently volunteer at a food bank. Meat is expensive if you have little money and aldi sell a pizza for 49p. There is no easy answer. Of course some of us can afford slow growth corn fed free range chicken but a large proportion of the population unfortunately would struggle if they made all those sort of life choices. Plus the market physically couldn't ever supply that volume.

Education, cutting back on meat, having affordable alternatives, improving animal welfare of barn animals and the whole leveling up agenda (whatever that is) is all needed i think?

We are pretty careful what we eat and buy but i will be honest price is also very important to us. 

Posted by: @jeff

...

Education, cutting back on meat, having affordable alternatives, improving animal welfare of barn animals and the whole leveling up agenda (whatever that is) is all needed i think?

...

Yes, absolutely.

In your first sentence, you said we need a lot of food including chicken to feed our large population. In that, I disagree; the population needs feeding, but meat - cheap or not - is not essential to do that. However, your comment about education hits the nail right on the head.

We've had poverty almost as long as we've had a civilisation, so we've become really inventive about how to feed ourselves well on a shoestring. However, today's society has, it seems, forgotten many of the lessons of past generations. Meat used to be a luxury, often eaten just once a week if that, and bulked out with energy-dense alternatives. That's why we have Yorkshire puddings, dumplings, steamed puddings, porridge, pancakes, stuffing and many other well known dishes. The answer to feeding those in poverty is not to make meat cheaper; it is, as you say, education. The knock-on effect, of course, is that our diets will become more plant-based again to the benefit of the environment.

I am well aware I can afford to eat what I want, and that I'm laying myself open to the "it's alright for him to say..." arguments. However, as with many I can remember times in my life where it was by no means definite that I'd be able to afford to eat every day, so I do know what I'm talking about. Chicken nuggets and chips may be cheap but they're not a nutritious balanced diet and I know full well I can cook meals that are both cheaper than that and more nutritious. If I can do it, so can anyone else but only if they know how.

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

Posted by: @jeff

...

Education, cutting back on meat, having affordable alternatives, improving animal welfare of barn animals and the whole leveling up agenda (whatever that is) is all needed i think?

...

Yes, absolutely.

In your first sentence, you said we need a lot of food including chicken to feed our large population. In that, I disagree; the population needs feeding, but meat - cheap or not - is not essential to do that. However, your comment about education hits the nail right on the head.

 

I disagree 😉 

I think above all we need to be pragmatic. There is a lot that can be done if we improve the higher up foods and nudge consumption down the chart below, rather than telling people they can't have things, which IMO won't work.  I really like chicken anyway.

Unless  one is ideologically opposed to meat, which is a different argument.

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

Posted by: @jeff

...

Education, cutting back on meat, having affordable alternatives, improving animal welfare of barn animals and the whole leveling up agenda (whatever that is) is all needed i think?

...

Yes, absolutely.

In your first sentence, you said we need a lot of food including chicken to feed our large population. In that, I disagree; the population needs feeding, but meat - cheap or not - is not essential to do that. However, your comment about education hits the nail right on the head.

We've had poverty almost as long as we've had a civilisation, so we've become really inventive about how to feed ourselves well on a shoestring. However, today's society has, it seems, forgotten many of the lessons of past generations. Meat used to be a luxury, often eaten just once a week if that, and bulked out with energy-dense alternatives. That's why we have Yorkshire puddings, dumplings, steamed puddings, porridge, pancakes, stuffing and many other well known dishes. The answer to feeding those in poverty is not to make meat cheaper; it is, as you say, education. The knock-on effect, of course, is that our diets will become more plant-based again to the benefit of the environment.

I am well aware I can afford to eat what I want, and that I'm laying myself open to the "it's alright for him to say..." arguments. However, as with many I can remember times in my life where it was by no means definite that I'd be able to afford to eat every day, so I do know what I'm talking about. Chicken nuggets and chips may be cheap but they're not a nutritious balanced diet and I know full well I can cook meals that are both cheaper than that and more nutritious. If I can do it, so can anyone else but only if they know how.

I do think you are laying yourself open as you say. 

I do feel offended. So this will be my last post on this thread. 

I always find it interesting how discussions about food and the environment can become polarized and decisive, which is why I was reluctant to start this thread. 

I feel that as consumers, we’ve been conditioned to eat meat. Admittedly, it’s easy to do because meat tastes great. The reality is that meat has become a cheap source of food. Just recently, I read that 99% of world meat consumption comes from animals that have been reared in intensive farming units. While filling, the meat is severely lacking in nutrition and quality.

Perceived cost, however, is part of the consumer buying decision process. If you have a family of four, for example, the aforementioned Aldi chicken with some sides could potentially serve up a dinner for around £5. Good value. An equally delicious bean con carne would cost around 2.50 (with a serving of rice) to feed the same family. Excellent value. Arguably more filling, with significant protein content and the whole meal is very nutritious. We have this at least twice a fortnight. A similar example is lentil bolognaise or lasagne over its meat alternative. The savings on this meal are even larger than the con carne example above. The bolognaise sauce with lentils costs around £1 to make.

Like I said at the outset, it’s not able telling people what to do. It’s about getting people to see they can make dietary changes that can benefit the planet, and it’s an immediate impact. Ironically, I received a press release on this subject on Friday which is embargoed till tomorrow with some very interesting points. I’ll post it tomorrow morning.

As promised here’s the release I received titled: New research reveals eating five-a-day and reducing meat could help reverse decline of more than 500 endangered UK species

New research released today by the food policy think tank, The Food Foundation, shows that by eating five portions of fruit and vegetables per day and reducing meat intake by around a third, people around the UK could help reverse the population decline of up to 536 endangered UK species.

The shift in diet could enable land currently used for livestock grazing to be freed up to plant the hedgerows and trees needed to support greater biodiversity, increasing habitable land by more than 10% for vulnerable species including red squirrels, harvest mice and house sparrows, and for pollinating insects - an area half the size of Wales.

The average person’s fruit and vegetable intake in the UK currently falls one portion short of the recommended 5 a day (400g). According to The Food Foundation, if everyone across the UK were enabled to increase their vegetable intake by a handful a day, and reduce their red meat intake by 5.5g a day (around a burger less per week) - up to 27% of land currently used for grazing livestock could be managed to generate greater biodiversity.

The data is revealed on the day that a set of the world’s leading youth food activists are launching a manifesto of ‘Actions 4 Change’ as part of their Act4Food Act4Change campaign, which sets out the top ten actions more than 100,000 young people across the world want governments and businesses to take in order to tackle hunger and protect the environment.

Backing the sustainable farming methods required to reverse biodiversity decline is one of the top three priorities of the manifesto, alongside ensuring everyone can afford healthy and nutritious food and making sure every child can eat a healthy and sustainable meal at school, college or nursery.

In order to ensure farmers are able to manage their land for biodiversity and bolster vegetable production, the Food Foundation is calling on the UK Government to approve a strategy and package of support for British fruit and veg producers, and to expand land management schemes currently being trialled.

17-year-old Yumna Hussen, Act4Food Act4Change youth leader, said:

“Eating nutritious food is important to keep you healthy, but as a collective, we could help to reverse the catastrophic decline of hundreds of UK species, and protect people and the planet. By incentivising sustainable farming methods and vegetable consumption, governments and businesses can make this a reality. Young people around the world are calling time on inaction. Our manifesto of Actions 4 Change is a challenge to governments and businesses to do the right thing.”

Anna Taylor, Director of The Food Foundation, said:

“We are seeing the global movement of young people campaigning for a better food system growing by the day. The statistics are bleak: currently our global food system creates one third of all greenhouse gasses and is the biggest driver of biodiversity loss. But the voices of young people are powerful, and their determination brings hope.

The UK government has a unique opportunity to rescue hundreds of vulnerable UK species, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to improve the health of millions of families by ensuring everybody can afford to eat their five a day and reduce their meat intake. Critical first steps include expanding the Healthy Start scheme to enable more people on low incomes to buy more fruit and veg, and approving a Good Food Bill that sets out a clear vision and plan to enable the horticulture sector to flourish.”

The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world - with only half of its biodiversity remaining. 41% of UK species have declined since the 1970s, with more than 40 million birds disappearing from UK skies. In addition, unhealthy diets across England account for more than 10% of the country’s disease. One in five 10-11 year olds have obesity