In Defence of the Burger

Eating beef to save the planet

The MOD Report by Eugene Conradie

The meat industry will be obsolete in 15 years. This was the headline of a recently published CNBC interview with Impossible Foods CEO, Patrick Brown. The addition of a short quote - “That’s our mission” - hinted at the hyperbole of the headline, cleverly designed to grab attention.

In 2009, Mr. Brown left a distinguished academic career to pursue a solution to what he considers the world’s largest environmental problem: using animals to produce food. Following 7 years of research and development, Impossible Foods launched the Impossible Burger in 2016 to wide acclaim.

The burger is the company’s first step toward its stated mission “to restore biodiversity and reduce the impact of climate change” with plant-based food. The premise being that animal agriculture is bad for the planet and plant agriculture is good.

Killing the planet, one burp at a time

Estimates typically range from 10% to 18% of total greenhouse gases are released by animal agriculture. Beef production, in particular, is often cited as one of the major causes of climate change. Cattle produce methane as a by-product of digestion and, quite literally, are killing the planet, one burp at a time.

Methane may be the posterchild for detractors of the beef industry, but it’s only one part of a trifecta of major issues. Water consumption and land degradation are the other two evils of this highly inefficient protein source. Beef production in developing countries is especially inefficient, producing as much as one ton of carbon per kilogram of beef. That’s ten times the average for the USA and Europe, where intensive farming practices reduce inefficiency.

There’s no denying this presents a major challenge within the larger problem of climate change. The answer seems obvious: eat less meat. Indeed, meat consumption has decreased significantly in some countries thanks to increased awareness through films like Cowspiracy and Al Gore’s much publicized switch to veganism.

All this begs the question, how much better is a plant-based diet for the planet?

The path lined with good intentions

The journal Science, in 2018, published a study of greenhouse gas emissions. It estimated food production leads to 26% of total emissions.

Breaking this down further, animal agriculture and its associated land use accounted for approximately 47% of these emissions. Supply chains directly linked to food production is responsible for 18% of the emissions. It would surprise many that crop production, along with its associated land use, is responsible for as much as 35% of total food production greenhouse gas emissions.

The real jolt of reality, however, is the 47% figure attributed to animal agriculture includes fisheries. It turns out there’s hardly any difference in emissions between land-based plant and animal agriculture.

Soy and rice, mainstays of the plant-based diet movement, happen to be two of the most environmentally unfriendly crops. High water consumption, increased land erosion and methane levels comparable to some forms of livestock farming are hallmarks of both rice and soy production. Nitrous oxide, one of the most potent greenhouse gases, from rice farming is as damaging as coal production by some estimates.

Apart from environmental impact, soy production in South America is associated with widespread violence and the displacement of millions of people. The solution, it appears, is not quite as simple as eating less meat.

An old solution to a new problem

In his 2013 TED talk, Allan Savory describes culling 40,000 elephants as “the saddest and greatest blunder of his life”. Backed up by scientific research and good intentions, the cull was supposed to halt desertification in the African wildlife park he managed in the 1950s. Results ran contrary to scientific predictions and set Mr. Savory on a path of reconsidering established beliefs on land management.

His bold new direction would eventually lead to what he called “holistic management”. A new paradigm for effective land management, influenced by the writings of André Voisin and his own vast experience in the wilds of Africa. His brilliant insight was the role of roaming herbivores in effectively regenerating soil. Eventually, he would come to describe cattle as “the number one tool that can save mankind”.

Mr. Savory understood the importance of treating farmland as holistic ecologies, not simply as a means for production. The practical results of what is now commonly known as “regenerative farming” are astounding. Once barren stretches of rocky ground turn into lush, biodiverse fields of green in a matter of years. In locations around the world, from Zimbabwe to Mexico and even Saudi Arabia, holistic management has proven successful in regenerating lifeless stretches of land.

Perhaps the most surprising result is the ability of regenerative farms to sequester carbon. Studies have shown carbon neutral, even carbon negative, cattle farms are a reality when the land is holistically managed.

In defence of the burger

There’s no questioning the positive motives behind Impossible Foods and its competitors. Climate change is a real problem that demands real action, but good intentions don’t necessarily lead to correct solutions.

The impact of intensive grain-fed beef production rightly hit the spotlight in the early 2000s as consumers became more environmentally responsible. Climate activists were quick to advocate plant-based diets as a socially and environmentally responsible alternative. Celebrities and politicians jumped on the bandwagon and soon major food chains, like Starbucks and McDonalds, took note. It appears the court of popular opinion has ruled against the cow.

Of course, the food and beverage industry has an important role to play. Sustainability is at the heart of the industry’s longevity, not to mention the ethical responsibility of conserving our only home. We must, however, choose our partners carefully. Sustainability does not always mean riding the wave of popularity.

Appropriately sourced beef burgers are less damaging to the environment than plant-based imitation meat burgers. This is not a question of dietary preference, it’s a matter of making well-informed choices. Good intentions do not have to be shortsighted.

A new paradigm for sustainability

Popular opinion today is that human beings are bad for the planet. The common response is reducing our footprint is the best we can do. The unspoken reality is reducing our footprint means destroying the earth less quickly.

We don’t have to accept being less bad for the earth, we can actually be good for the earth. It is our habits, not our nature, that’s destructive and our vast potential for destruction is equalled by our potential for regeneration.

As an industry, we must do not what is expedient, but what is right. A true commitment to sustainability includes supporting regenerative farms. As it turns out, selling responsibly sourced beef burgers may help save the planet.