Pros and Cons of Meat Limiting Approach

Meat Limiting Approach

Recent environmental events like global warming, water and air pollution, loss of biodiversity, deforestation, and land degradation demonstrate the effect of human activities on the environment. These events are brought about by a wide range of human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases due to industrialization. Zur & Klockner (2014) contend that household consumption is the major contributor of human-related emissions. This implies that housing, food, and transport are the major factors contributing to environmental effects. Given these factors, efforts to promote and enhance environmental sustainability focus on limiting household consumption, particularly meat consumption. While numerous arguments have been raised to support meat consumption, this paper argues that meat consumption has positive environmental, social, and behavioral effects.

Overview of Meat Consumption

Meat consumption is one of the broad categories of behaviors in which the preferences of individuals have a significant impact on the environment and sustainability. Zur & Klockner (2014) define meat consumption as voluntary behavior involving meat intake. Meat is regarded as one of the most nourishing and highly consumed foods (Albenny, 2020). Over the past few decades, the demand for meat and animal products has increased because of rising incomes, sociocultural factors, and an increase in population. In addition, the global community faces significant challenges relating to food security as the size of the global population continues to stretch the global ecosystem. While the need for food security has increased in recent decades, meat consumption has attracted significant attention in relation to its effect on health and the environment. The probable health and environmental effects of meat consumption have played a key role in increased arguments on limiting the intake of these food products. The production and consumption of animal products is viewed as a more urgent problem, particularly in relation to promoting environmental sustainability.

The Case for Meat Consumption

The focus on environmental sustainability and food security has generated concerns about the extent to which limiting meat consumption would ensure sustainability and improve food security. Currently, limiting meat consumption is viewed as critical to improving food security and ensuring sustainability because of the negative health and environmental effects of overconsumption of meat products. Proponents of meat limiting approach have argued that it would help to avoid unsustainable livestock production, which has been one of the major contributors to negative environmental effects. They argue that increased demand for meat products is associated with contaminated freshwater supplies, biodiversity loss, water and land degradation, and increased greenhouse gas emissions (Rust et al., 2020). However, there is evidence in support of the consumption of meat with regards to its impact on environment and social acceptance as well as behavior change.

First, limiting the consumption of meat would not necessarily improve food security. The global community is already facing significant challenges in feeding nine billion people within the global ecosystem (de Bakker & Dagevos, 2011). Therefore, limiting meat consumption would put further strains on the currently stretched global ecosystem. Reduction of meat consumption would put more burdens on the global ecosystem by increasing demand for and reliance on plant-based diets. Current scientific evidence shows that plants have traits that have effects on landscape, water, and energy. Chapin III (2003) states that water and energy exchanges affected by plant traits affect the microclimate of a local ecosystem by increasing heat and moisture input into the atmosphere. This eventually affects precipitation and temperature in downwind ecosystems. Plant traits could increase atmospheric heating and changes in temperature by 1·5–3·5 °C resulting in vegetation changes and negative environmental effects (Chapin III, 2003). Therefore, limiting meat consumption to increase dependence on plant-based diets could generate significant vegetation changes that affect the environment. Meat consumption would help create a balance and lessen the environmental effects of reliance on plant-based food items.

Secondly, efforts to limit meat consumption are likely to fail because of challenges relating to social acceptance and behavior change. Kwasny, Dobernig & Riefler (2022) contend that there is a lack of scientific evidence on the effectiveness of initiating profound changes in consumer behavior in relation to limiting meat consumption. Current interventions toward reducing meat consumption do not address socio-cultural factors like social norms. By failing to address socio-cultural factors, these efforts are ineffective in promoting behavior change. People in many societies worldwide are reluctant to reduce meat consumption because of beliefs regarding the positive health effects of meat. Moreover, this reluctance is fueled by the social environment and the cultural significance meat holds in established social norms. Therefore, achieving the desirable social acceptance and behavior change to limit meat consumption is impossible because of the perceived significance of meat in social norms.

Third, meat consumption is essential because it is a source of vital amounts of essential amino acids, protein, minerals, and vitamins. Meat consumption provides minerals that are most the common nutrient deficiencies across the globe such as zinc, iron, and vitamin A (Klurfeld, 2018). Claims that meat consumption causes health effects like colon cancer are supported by weak data and confounded by several unmeasured factors (Klurfeld, 2018). The association of meat consumption with health effects like colon cancer fails to consider other risk factors such as lack of physical activity/exercise and overweight issues/obesity. Klurfeld (2018) states that the relative risk of meat consumption in generating health effects like colon cancer is 1.18. This risk level falls significantly below what should be considered by epidemiologists. This implies that the relative risk of meat consumption in generating human and environmental health effects is substantially low. Since other risk factors play a critical role in human health effects of meat consumption, lessening the intake of meat products would not improve food security and ensure sustainability.

In conclusion, meat consumption remains a controversial and divisive issue that has attracted arguments and counterarguments. This approach has some pros and cons, which have been the subject of debates regarding meat limiting. On one hand, there are claims that reducing meat consumption would have positive effects on food security and environmental sustainability. However, there is scientific evidence to in support of meat consumption in relation to environmental effects, social acceptance, and behavior change. Meat consumption helps to create a balance in global ecosystems that would be significantly burdened and damaged by dependence on plant-based food items. In addition, achieving the desired levels of social acceptance and behavior change for reduction of meat intake would be impossible because of the importance meat holds in today’s social norms. Finally, the association of meat consumption with health effects like colon cancer is based on a significantly low relative risk. Therefore, reducing meat consumption would not improve food security and ensure sustainability.