Tenth International Conference on Food Studies

Abstract

Few questions about the food system are more difficult to answer than, “Should I eat meat?” While animal protein is fundamental to human health, and herbivore-carnivore interactions are critical to environmental health, recent literature and campaigns by interest groups suggest that meat production and consumption are deleterious. We hypothesized that the way meat is produced, not meat itself, determines its impacts. We compared the risks of meat production and consumption produced by industrial and conventional (IC) practices, with that produced by regenerative and pasture-based (RP) practices. IC operators usually feed grain, even when livestock are pastured. Animals are often maintained or “finished” in high density confined animal feeding operations, where they may receive hormonal and antibiotic growth-enhancers. RP livestock are usually pastured and “grass-finished.” Hormonal supplements are never used; antibiotics are only administered to sick animals. RP soils have higher microbial biomass, diversity and fungal: bacterial ratios than IC operations. Soil carbon and carbon sequestration rates, plant biomass and diversity are higher on RP than IC operations. RP-meat production generates 30% of the greenhouse gases and requires 10% of the water used in IC production. Total lipid levels and low density: total lipid ratios are higher in IC than RP meats. RP meat production is associated with 0.3% of the E. coli contamination risk as IC production. Do meat production and consumption represent risks to human and environmental health? The answer depends on how it is produced.