UN May Call On Americans to Cut Meat Intake—But Will it Work?

Beef ranchers survey their herd of cattle in Quemado, Texas on June 13, 2023. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

If the United Nations told Americans to eat less meat, would they? Probably not, according to one expert.

During the COP28 summit, developed nations appear likely to be told by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization they need to cut back on meat consumption to help fight climate change.

The 28th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP28, being held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, runs from Nov. 30 through Dec. 12. The meeting is centered on finding ways to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5°C, as required by the 2015 Paris Agreement.

In an interview with The Epoch Times, Frank Mitloehner, director of the Clarity and Leadership for Environmental Awareness and Research Center at the University of California, Davis, said he has yet to see the report. But if the FAO does, in fact, recommend people eat less meat, it won’t make a difference in their diets.

“People will (not) eat less ... because there are a couple of ivory tower people thinking that this is the way it should be,” Mr. Mitloehner said. “It’s not going to happen.”

For years, people in the developed world have been told by mainstream media and institutions about the supposed benefits of eating less meat or switching to a vegan diet, and they continue to eat meat and use animal products anyway.

“So, if the FAO or somebody else says, ‘Well, we are eating too much of this or too much of that,’ they can say that,” Mr. Mitloehner said. “At the end of the day, people will eat what they want to eat.”

Cattle and Methane

The reasoning for the decision, Mr. Mitloehner said, is that livestock, and cattle in particular, create too much methane.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and its presence in the atmosphere can raise the surface temperature of the Earth. Unlike carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, Mr. Mitloehner said, methane is naturally destroyed through oxidation. Therefore, the methane level in the atmosphere will fall on its own if the amount of the gas emitted remains constant.

The methane argument began in 2006 when the FAO first asserted the livestock sector is “responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions,” which is a “higher share than transport.” The same report, called “Livestock’s Long Shadow,“ said the global livestock sector as a whole ”emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane.”

Mitloehner said he battled that assertion for years and eventually got the FAO to admit it was wrong. The greenhouse gas emission figure for livestock was dropped to 11 percent.

Nevertheless, the methane argument continues to carry weight with the FAO and with environmental organizations. Mr. Mitloehner said he’s followed this issue for years and found the people who support the methane argument are simply longtime critics of animal agriculture who believe in a vegan world.

For years, opponents of animal agriculture argued against farming on the grounds that it’s cruel to animals. However, that argument never really resonated with people, so they’ve moved on to the climate change contention in an effort to spread the vegan agenda.

No Significant Difference

In 2017, researchers estimated what the climate impact would be if everyone in the United States adopted a vegan lifestyle. It found that if the American livestock and poultry industries ceased to exist, overall greenhouse gas emissions from the United States would drop by 2.6 percent.

“Removing animals from U.S. agriculture would reduce agricultural (greenhouse gas) emissions, but would also create a food supply incapable of supporting the U.S. population’s nutritional requirements,” the report said.

The report was written by Robin White, a professor at the Department of Animal & Poultry Sciences at Virginia Tech, and Mary Beth Hall, an animal scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service’s U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison, Wisconsin. It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Mr. Mitloehner said a 2.6 percent reduction is notable, but it will not help meet the UN’s stated climate goals.

Beef cattle feed on hay at a ranch on the outskirts of Delano, Calif., on Feb. 3, 2014. Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

In an email to The Epoch Times, Ethan Lane, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association vice president of government affairs, said the U.S. beef cattle herd’s methane emissions account for less than 0.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing beef consumption wouldn’t be a “realistic or impactful solution.”

“Solutions that seek to reduce meat consumption are misguided and will only lead to limited consumer choice and higher food prices,” Mr. Lane said. “America’s beef producers and consumers around the globe deserve real solutions to the climate issue, not artificial barriers to protein consumption that will do nothing to solve the world’s climate issues.”

In a statement provided to The Epoch Times, House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) echoed the sentiment.

“Regulating producers out of business in the U.S. will not effectively address global climate change, but export production to foreign countries with hostile regimes and worse emissions profiles while harming food security and affordability,“ Mr. Thompson said. ”Simply put, the world needs American farmers and ranchers more than the UN.”

Real Problems, Real Solutions

If the FAO really wants to fix climate problems, Mr. Mitloehner said it should start on global programs to reduce food waste and improve the efficiency of agriculture in the developing world.

The FAO estimates, Mr. Mitloehner said, that about 40 percent of all the food produced in the world is wasted through loss, spoilage, or consumer rejection. In the developed world, spoiled or uneaten food winds up in greenhouse gas-emitting landfills. Elsewhere, food never makes it into a mouth because of crop failures, disease, or inability to get it to market.

Next, the FAO should work with farmers in the developing world to modernize their practices and grow food more efficiently.

Tollgate farm employee Dave Schillawski milks cows at Tollgate farm in Ancramdale, New York, on Jan. 17, 2020. Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images

In the United States, there are about 9 million dairy cattle. This is a significant drop from 1950, when there were 25 million, Mr. Mitloehner said. Due to increased efficiency, fewer cattle are actually producing more milk than they did in 1950. Other, less developed countries, he said, are operating 70 to 80 years behind in terms of animal genetics, farming technology, and veterinary solutions.

The world’s largest cattle herd is in India. There, 300 million cattle produce a “dismal” amount of milk and struggle to make enough to feed the nation. Often, for religious reasons, once a cow is done producing milk, it is set free where it continues to eat and emit.

Other countries are similar. Mr. Mitloehner spoke about a recent trip to Colombia, where he observed dairy cattle producing just 5 liters of milk a day. Dairy cattle in California produce 45 liters daily.

In China, home to the world’s largest pig herd and half of the world’s pigs, farmers lose about 40 percent of piglets, Mr. Mitloehner said. An advanced country still struggles with mortality far more than the United States.

If the FAO were to focus on modernizing animal agriculture in developing nations, Mr. Mitloehner said, it could “dramatically” reduce emissions from livestock.

“We need to help ... farmers in developing countries to produce much more efficiently because that is where the emissions occur,” Mr. Mitloehner said.

The FAO did not return a request for comment by press time.