Is eating meat or are bad farming practices the enemy?  

The debate over meat eating has been around for centuries. On one side are those who argue that consuming meat is necessary for human health and that it is ethical to use Earth’s resources. On the other side are those arguing that vegetarianism is more ethical because it does not involve killing animals and has a lower environmental impact.

This week we will consider the environmental impact of locally reared meat compared with imported fruit and vegetables. 

Eating high-quality meat  

It has long been argued that consuming high-quality meat is necessary for human health and utilising all of Earth’s resources. Meat provides humans with essential nutrients such as protein, omega-3 fatty acids, and important vitamins and minerals.

Furthermore, it is argued that grazing animals on natural pastures can help maintain biodiversity in grasslands and savannas, allowing them to thrive.

From an environmental standpoint, using resources efficiently means rearing animals for meat can actually be beneficial. For instance, feedlot beef production uses only 2% of the total land area used directly or indirectly in food production but accounts for nearly 30% of all protein consumed worldwide. This means more land is available for other purposes like tree plantations or growing crops other than grain. 

Additionally, some livestock species provide services like weed control or nutrient cycling which are important in maintaining ecological balance. They also produce manure which can be used as a natural fertiliserinstead of synthetic fertilisers that are energy intensive and emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when produced. Moreover, there are efficient ways for raising livestock such as no-till agriculture which involves minimal tilling of the soil and does not disturb its structure or reduce its fertility levels over time as opposed to traditional methods of farming where tillage causes deterioration of soil quality leading to erosion issues over time.

It is also worth noting that some meats are healthier than others due to different fat content; for example, organic grass-fed beef has higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids compared to grain-fed beef. /p>

We know that there are other factors to consider such as water consumption and methane production, however, science is investing in ways to increase water efficiency and offset methane produced by animals.  

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Must read: organic vs non-organic meat, is there a difference? ______________________________________________________________________________________

The environmental impact of eating out-of-season fruit and vegetables

Fruits and vegetables grown out of season rely heavily on synthetic fertilisers, which release carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane into the atmosphere. Tilling fields to grow these crops also releases large volumes of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Moreover, foods such as avocados, mushrooms, cocoa and nuts have a large water footprint due to the amount of water needed to produce them all year round. 

When fruits and vegetables are out of season in the UK, air-transported imports can be responsible for releasing more GHGs than organic, grass or corn-fed poultry meat. Food miles contribute significantly to the overall environmental impact, as any food imported from overseas needs to be flown or transported by ship; both methods are responsible for generating large amounts of CO2 emissions, both directly and indirectly. This detail is often overlooked by those who argue for a plant-based diet.

Furthermore, organic waste produced during packaging needs to be disposed of correctly; if not done properly this can lead to further GHG emissions into the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, studies do suggest that going vegetarian can reduce an individual’s emissions by around 4.3%. However, since vegetarian diets are usually slightly cheaper than those that include meat, there could potentially be an increase in GHG emissions from additional spending on goods and services with that saved money – offsetting up to half of the saved emissions from going vegetarian in the first place. In other words, if a vegetarian uses their saved money to pay for a holiday or a manufactured product like a television, the carbon footprint is simply transferred somewhere else.

Conclusion: 

Mass farming methods are the enemy, not eating meat, but this goes away if you source meat from local organic suppliers like sHalal Origin. 

Although in some respects, vegetarianism may have a marginally smaller environmental impact than consuming meat, it is an impractical policy to implement on a global scale. This is because it is clear that for reduced GHG emissions to affect climate change, everybody would need to adopt a non-meat diet permanently which is unrealistic. After all, people find it difficult to give up their favourite food.

Investing in sustainable farming practices is the most realistic way forward when it comes to reducing our overall environmental impact whilst still satisfying the world's demand for meat products. 

You can make an immediate positive impact on your health and the environment by choosing organic grass or corn-fed options.  

At Halal-Origins, all our products are organic. Our animals are locally reared and live on sustainable diets free from GMO feedstock, synthetic fertilisers, or unnatural pesticides, so the environmental impact is minimal.  

While it is important to consider the health of our wonderful ecosystem, it is equally important to consider your health and eating meat is essential to that.  

Start your conscious meat-eating journey today and feel proud to be part of the movement.