Sustainability / Environment

Report: EU Livestock Farming Has “Major Negative Consequences”, Consumption Patterns Must Change

Wageningen University & Research (WUR) recently hosted its annual Mansholt Lecture, which aims to “inspire European policymakers and stakeholders on critical societal issues, particularly those related to sustainable agri-food systems and the living environment”.

This year’s lecture focused on land use, and is accompanied by a report titled Key dilemmas on future land use for agriculture, forestry and nature in the EU. A significant theme is the negative impact of livestock farming and the need for a change in consumption patterns.

The report discusses five key dilemmas:

Self-sufficiency

While the EU has a high level of food security, it is highly dependent on imported raw materials such as fertilisers, energy, and animal feed. The region could produce more protein crops and oilseeds, but it would then be necessary to restrict the use of biomass for animal feed and fuel, which would require changes in consumption habits.

© LEG-ITA

Animal agriculture

WUR notes that the current size of the EU livestock herd has “major negative consequences” for climate change, biodiversity, and people. The increasing ethical concerns around raising animals for meat are also discussed. The report outlines the possibility of using raw materials and waste streams for animal feed to avoid competing with human food production, but finds that this may still require a reduction in animal protein consumption.

Climate and biodiversity targets

The European Climate Law has set specific targets to reduce emissions, but it has not been determined whether carbon budgets will be imposed on a per-country basis or traded between member states. This decision could have significant consequences, since nature and biodiversity are not evenly distributed among countries.

Competing claims for land

Efforts to improve food security, biodiversity, and environmental impact may lead to competition for land between producers of food and non-food biomass. Decisions will need to be made regarding what is prioritised and how this plays out within individual countries and the EU as a whole.

Image courtesy of dsm firmenich

Behavioural interventions

Government interventions are needed to influence consumers to adopt more sustainable consumption patterns. However, this could lead to resistance if the public feels that their freedom of choice has been restricted.

Research in some countries has found that the majority of consumers are in favour of certain government interventions, such as policies to reduce meat consumption. Despite this, there are questions regarding how far this should be taken.

“There are already a range of possible directions to explore in each of the dilemmas above,” says the report. “Adding a further layer of complexity is that these dilemmas are strongly interconnected − decisions made in one dilemma could limit options in others. We will need whole-of-society approaches to decisions across these five dilemmas, as they will shape the future of our food and non-food biobased system, nature and
biodiversity outcomes, and overall quality of life.”

Share

Interviews