This month, McDonald’s announced a 5-year, $8.5 million investment in soil health mitigation with farmers in Nebraska, joining forces with Target and industrial meat giant Cargill. And last month, Burger King promoted its search for cattle feed that it claims could reduce methane emissions.
The idea of a climate-friendly burger is feeding a frenzy of interest from foodies to ag scientists to industry executives. Fast food companies like Chicago-based McDonald’s are on the prowl for a way out of the increasingly obvious environmental destruction wrought on the planet from beef production.
But they want a way out that doesn’t require reducing beef production. The problem is, cows are one of the leading drivers of climate change. Studies show the U.S., which consumes 2-3 times the global average in beef, needs to reduce up to 90% of beef consumption if we are serious about meeting emissions-reduction targets. Reducing consumption, not just changing production, is where the newest research shows we must steer this cattle drive.
And yet, the search for climate-friendly beef persists because businesses are passing the buck on climate change. Instead of supporting farmers to transition to real climate solutions, the meat industry is staging cows as carbon-friendly creatures. Weaving together creative accounting that claims the industries destroying the planet are the ones saving it, this narrative dissuades the public from questioning America’s supersized appetite for beef. Trying to engineer better cows — rather than eating less of them — is the wrong direction.
And the danger is not only that it’s a false solution, but that we have no time to waste being distracted from real solutions. We have less than a decade to slash greenhouse gas emissions in half. If we don’t change the way we eat, diet-related emissions will increase 9% by 2030. For example, the 2019 EAT-Lancet report poses an urgent call for eating less meat – not just producing it differently. The data showed that more “climate-friendly” production has an emissions reduction potential of 10% by 2050, compared to 80% by eating less red meat and dairy and more plant-based foods.
There is no question less cattle means less carbon, and less methane. Less cattle also mean less land is needed for grazing and feed crops, which means less climate disruption from land-use changes and deforestation. Ending deforestation not only helps the climate, but also reduces zoonotic disease risks, water withdrawals, pollution, desertification, habitat loss and biodiversity loss. Instead of wasting time engineering the perfect cow, the food industry can make real strides towards addressing the problem of our outsized beef consumption by shifting their menus toward plant-based options.
Earlier this year, Panera announced it was moving toward 50% plant-based menus. Companies such as Dunkin, KFC, Hardee’s, Carl’s Jr., White Castle and many others, including Burger King, have jumped on the industry trend of promoting plant-based items on their menus. But to be truly competitive in the race against climate catastrophe, they need to double down on plant-based options and scale back the high-emissions foods on their menus. Restaurants like McDonald’s should pursue sustainable options, for real, not for show. We need less beef, not different beef.
Companies promoting “climate-friendly beef” are as enmeshed in false solutions as burger lovers who just want to keep eating beef. It is an addiction to a fairytale our planet cannot sustain.
Jennifer Molidor is senior food campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Ariz.
September 09, 2020 at 04:58AM
https://ift.tt/2FhxhoQ
There's No Such Thing as Climate-Neutral Beef - Crain's Chicago Business
https://ift.tt/2RxTDX4
Beef
No comments:
Post a Comment