19
inequality and to improve workers’ condition; (7) to adopt economic policies able
to countering the interests of the large multinationals operating in the meat sector.
As if to say that, if the market directs economic choices, then only a progressive
change in alimentary habits can orient towards a sustainable agriculture. The message,
to motivate the consumers to change their diets, should than consider all factors which
influence consumer behavior towards food. The aim is to convince the public that the
consumption of meat is neither natural nor normal and doesn’t meet the protein needs
of the human body, as generally believed. The adverts such as “eat a juicy steak,” or
“Beef¾Real Food for Real People” are aimed at influencing the choices of consumers, especially children and men, who are more sensitive to the idea that eating meat
strengthens the body. Therefore, the large multinationals operating in the meat sector
are interested in promoting and encouraging higher levels of meat consumption.
Well-developed and attractive new meat alternatives should than be used together
with social marketing techniques to convey the need for dietary changes and to
promote a shift in dietary habits. The need to encourage a shift in dietary habits was,
for example, at the origin of the American Meatless Monday’s campaign, aimed at
supporting health, nutrition, animal welfare and the environment. Nonetheless
this change, although desirable, is not easy to achieve, due to the strong economic
interests of the meat-producing industries. The reaction of the National Cattlemen’s
Beef Association to the campaign launched by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) in 2012 is emblematic. The USDA, in “Greening Headquarters Update”,
emphasized the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and health risks of the
animal agriculture, inviting its employees to join the Meatless Monday’s campaign.
The immediate protest of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and of the
beef-producing states forced the USDA to tweet a statement for removing the
endorsement to the Meatless Monday. One of the reasons was that this campaign,
used during the World War I against an excessive meat consumption (Wilson 1918)
couldn’t be endorsed by a public agency and, therefore, employed as a weapon
against producers whose primary aim was to produce food and fiber for a growing
global population in a very sustainable way. What lesson can we draw from all these
events? It emerges that the central question is not whether to eat or not meat, but
how to reconcile the opposing interests. At issue is not the possibility of imagining
a vegetarian world, but the hope of focusing on a more plant-based diet. Suitable
institutional and policy frameworks should than be developed, at local, national and
international levels, to increase in the consumers the awareness that continuing
“business as usual” is detrimental for the health and the environment, and to show
the benefits of a changing attitude (Fox 1991).
References
Bellarby J et al (2008) Cool Farmin: Climate Impacts of Agriculture and Mitigation Potential,
University of Aberdeen, 2.1 (13)
Burkholder J, Libra B, Weyer P, Heathcote S, Kolpin D, Thorne P et al (2007) Impacts of waste
from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality. Environ Health Perspect
11(2):308–312. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817674/pdf/
Animal Based Industries and Climate Change
inequality and to improve workers’ condition; (7) to adopt economic policies able
to countering the interests of the large multinationals operating in the meat sector.
As if to say that, if the market directs economic choices, then only a progressive
change in alimentary habits can orient towards a sustainable agriculture. The message,
to motivate the consumers to change their diets, should than consider all factors which
influence consumer behavior towards food. The aim is to convince the public that the
consumption of meat is neither natural nor normal and doesn’t meet the protein needs
of the human body, as generally believed. The adverts such as “eat a juicy steak,” or
“Beef¾Real Food for Real People” are aimed at influencing the choices of consumers, especially children and men, who are more sensitive to the idea that eating meat
strengthens the body. Therefore, the large multinationals operating in the meat sector
are interested in promoting and encouraging higher levels of meat consumption.
Well-developed and attractive new meat alternatives should than be used together
with social marketing techniques to convey the need for dietary changes and to
promote a shift in dietary habits. The need to encourage a shift in dietary habits was,
for example, at the origin of the American Meatless Monday’s campaign, aimed at
supporting health, nutrition, animal welfare and the environment. Nonetheless
this change, although desirable, is not easy to achieve, due to the strong economic
interests of the meat-producing industries. The reaction of the National Cattlemen’s
Beef Association to the campaign launched by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) in 2012 is emblematic. The USDA, in “Greening Headquarters Update”,
emphasized the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and health risks of the
animal agriculture, inviting its employees to join the Meatless Monday’s campaign.
The immediate protest of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and of the
beef-producing states forced the USDA to tweet a statement for removing the
endorsement to the Meatless Monday. One of the reasons was that this campaign,
used during the World War I against an excessive meat consumption (Wilson 1918)
couldn’t be endorsed by a public agency and, therefore, employed as a weapon
against producers whose primary aim was to produce food and fiber for a growing
global population in a very sustainable way. What lesson can we draw from all these
events? It emerges that the central question is not whether to eat or not meat, but
how to reconcile the opposing interests. At issue is not the possibility of imagining
a vegetarian world, but the hope of focusing on a more plant-based diet. Suitable
institutional and policy frameworks should than be developed, at local, national and
international levels, to increase in the consumers the awareness that continuing
“business as usual” is detrimental for the health and the environment, and to show
the benefits of a changing attitude (Fox 1991).
References
Bellarby J et al (2008) Cool Farmin: Climate Impacts of Agriculture and Mitigation Potential,
University of Aberdeen, 2.1 (13)
Burkholder J, Libra B, Weyer P, Heathcote S, Kolpin D, Thorne P et al (2007) Impacts of waste
from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality. Environ Health Perspect
11(2):308–312. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817674/pdf/
Animal Based Industries and Climate Change