Livestock experts Anne Mottet and Henning Steinfeld, of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), warn of the pitfalls of simplification when looking at greenhouse gas emissions from livestock. Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and transport are often compared, but in a flawed way.
Calls for us all to switch entirely to plant-based foods ignore one of the most powerful tools we have to mitigate these ills: grazing and browsing animals.
Once again, the debate on sustainable diets and in particular on (not) eating animal-derived products is resurfacing in the media, as illustrated most recently by an article in The Guardian. The paper reported on a study by J. Poore and T. Nemecek entitled ‘Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers’, published in the latest edition of Science magazine.
The CIDRAP reports this week on a global survey that ‘indicates that while there has been sustained progress on developing national action plans to address antimicrobial resistance (AMR), major gaps remain.
Competing successfully in ‘old’ markets for capital, labour, goods and services no longer suffices. Firms, governments and other actors are compelled to create, contend and collaborate in new markets with distinct features and operating rules—markets for narratives.
Berhe Tekola, director of the Animal Production and Health Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), this weekpublished an opinion piece in the Bangkok Post (25 Jun 2018), reminds readers that livestock are integral to the fabric of life in many developing countries.
The debate over whether a vegetarian diet is better for the planet is top of mind for many as news of water scarcity, climate change, and deforestation seem to worsen by the day. Sarah Taber, a US-based agricultural scientist added another angle to the debate earlier this month when she laid out the argument that calling vegetarianism and/or veganism a universally ‘better’ diet is a form of colonialist thinking.