Switching from British-bred beef and lamb to imported meat substitutes such as tofu increases the need for cultivated land
It is a claim that could put a dent in the green credentials of vegetarians: Meat-free diets can be bad for the planet.
Environmental activists and vegetarians have long taken pleasure in telling those who enjoy a steak that livestock farming is a major source of harmful greenhouse gases.
But research has shown that giving up meat may not be as green as it seems.
The Cranfield University study found that switching from British-bred beef and lamb to meat substitutes imported from abroad such as tofu and Quorn would increase the amount of land cultivated, raising the risk of forests being destroyed.
Production methods for meat substitutes can be energy intensive and the final products tend to be highly processed, the report, which was commissioned by the environmental group WWF, found.
The researchers concluded: ‘A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK.
Donal Murphy-Bokern, one of the report’s authors and a former co-ordinator at the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told the Times: ‘For some people, tofu and other meat substitutes symbolise environmental friendliness but they are not necessarily the badge of merit that people claim.’
But Liz O’Neill, of the Vegetarian Society, said: ‘If you’re aiming to reduce your environmental impact by going vegetarian then it’s obviously not a great idea to rely on highly-processed products.’
A spokesman for the WWF said it was important to remember that livestock produce large amounts of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
I agree with Liz O’Neill — of course, it’s not healthy for ANY of us to rely on highly-processed food products. In fact, I think that’s one of the main reasons (among many) that most vegetarians decide to become vegetarians. I think the headline of this article is misleading as it only relates to the effect of meat analogues and refined products. What if everyone switched to whole foods, like edamame, grains, leafy green veggies, and the whole gamut of other healthful plants? I can’t imagine the world would be worse-off than it is now. I’d definitely like to see a study done on that.
The headline of this article is incredibly misleading. While it is true that processed soy products do require large plots of land. If they are LOCAL, it is still more efficient than beef or pork (poultry is equally efficient). What you described is the difference between local meat and imported tofu. If it’s imported, the cost of transportation must be weighed in. This is just poor journalism.