#less meat

This poster from the U.S. Food Administration was printed in 1917 during WWI to encourage food conservation. The text also reads: "1. Wheat, use more corn. 2. Meat, use more fish & beans. 3. Fats, use just enough. 4. Sugar, use syrups."

A message from your 1917 wartime government:

1. Buy it with thought 2. Cook it with care 3. Use less wheat and meat 4. Buy local foods 5. Serve just enough 6. Use what is left.

If you give a cow 100 grams of protein, you only get 5 grams of protein in return, in the form of meat, and 20 to 30 grams in dairy.

Feeding eight billion people within the boundaries of our planet with healthy and affordable food that also gives farmers a good income? It's possible. A search for outlining a less destructive food system.

Touch our food, and you touch our identity. Changing what we eat and how we produce it creates resistance. Still, things have to change. Our food system comes with unsustainable costs. It generates a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. It thrives on land robbery and destruction of ecosystems, such as the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado[1]. It pollutes watercourses and soils and makes Flanders a nitrogen pollution hotspot. Farmers have become cogs in an industrial machine, countries depend on fragile supply lines.

Without a food transition, it is impossible to achieve the climate goals and to safeguard biodiversity. It is just about the most difficult and delicate transformation we face. The stakes are high and go to the heart of the political debate. Nevertheless, consensus is growing among experts about three major principles.

1. Closing cycles

Once upon a time, soil, animals, manure and crops were in balance within one farm. That chain has been cut open and rolled out in international supply lines. Producers of crops, fertilisers, meat or dairy products still have little to do with each other. Specialisation and monocultures have pushed the efficiency of the global food industry to its limits.

Soy is a nitrogenous plant that is packed with protein. By importing it, we inject tons of nitrogen into our agriculture.

This 'green revolution' gave the world population a boost, but it is coming up against ecological limits. In a more sustainable model, we have to close cycles again. The 'soy question' alone forces us to do so: soy is a nitrogenous plant that is packed with proteins. This type of bean is extremely efficient to make cows, chickens and pigs grow quickly. But by importing it, we inject tons of nitrogen into our agriculture, the surplus of which accumulates in our nature.

To close cycles, agro-ecological principles can inspire: exchanging flows between agriculture and livestock, nourishing the soil in a healthy way. "Not every crop farmer should therefore have cows," explains Kurt Sannen, a circular agriculture researcher at the Institute for Nature and Forest Research[2] that runs an organic farm itself. "But you do want to evoluate to a network of companies that work together on a regional scale."

In any case, the nitrogen tap has to be closed. The Dutch nitrogen expert Jan Willem Erisman (Leiden University) calculated that we should at least reduce to halve the import of artificial fertiliser from Russia as well as of soy from Brazil, among others. “If you push the circular model to its limit, you don't need much feed concentrates. Cows can be fed with grass, making them useful grassland managers. Pigs and chickens can be fed with residual flows from the food industry.”

If we still want to feed, we can grow protein-rich feed ourselves, such as lupins, peas or grass-clover. Experiments have also been going on in Europe with soy for years. The best known is the Danube soy, which is grown in Central Europe and the Balkans and is used in veggie burgers and soy drinks, among other things. It is also possible in our country, says Professor Sofie Goormachtig, who leads the soy research at Ghent University and VIB.[3] 'We are in search for varieties that are suitable for our climate, but our research results are hopeful.'

In any case, we need to be more careful with the nitrogen in our system. ‘Now it is leaking from all sides,’ says Professor of Ecology Olivier Honnay (KU Leuven). “You can increase absorption efficiency with a combination of agroecology and high-tech. Cover crops can fix nitrogen during winter months. Precision technology teaches us to better understand how much the soil needs. At the same time, we have to plug leaks by recuperating waste streams. We can also recycle nitrogen from human excrement. It is absurd that we allow so much nitrogen to disappear down the drain.”

The recycling idea is gaining ground. But the agro lobby is against it. It would not be enough to feed ourselves, although a large majority of the experts we spoke to vehemently deny this allegation. ‘It is feasible on a large scale,’ say Erisman and Honnay, among others. Europe can feed itself, except for some exotic fruits, tea and cocoa. That is not a challenge.' But there is one important condition.

2. Less meat

This system can only work if we produce less meat. “Everything stands or falls with this,” says Honnay. Erisman also argues that the challenge is not in the cycle, but in the diet: 'If everyone eats as much meat as Europeans or Americans, we cannot feed the world. If we redistribute meat consumption better, we will succeed.”

The problem with livestock farming is the space it takes up. Three-quarters of agricultural land in Flanders is used for the production of animal feed. We make even greater demands on foreign land, such as Brazilian soybean fields, where animal feed is grown. That is not sustainable, and it is inefficient, says Honnay. 'We better grow protein-rich food for people in that space, such as soy, pods, peas and beans. The detour via cattle is very inefficient. If you give a cow 100 grams of protein, you only get 5 grams of protein in return, in the form of meat, and 20 to 30 grams in dairy.'

In a study commissioned by the European Commission, scientists come to the conclusion that we should halve meat consumption. Some platforms, such as EAT-Lancet [4] (which developed a healthy and sustainable diet), suggest even deeper reductions. This evokes resentment, including among the more than a thousand scientists who signed the Dublin declaration[5], in which they stand up for livestock farming. One of them is VUB professor of Food Sciences Frédéric Leroy, who wrote an article about the issue in Nature Food [6]this week. “The debate is too ideological,” he says. “There is a war on meat. We want to add nuance, and indicate that livestock farming has a substantial place in our food system.” However, Leroy does not deny that there is an 'absolute need for transformation, less deforestation and less nitrogen pollution. In some parts of the world, animal production has to increase, in our country you are going to a reduction.'

The most difficult hurdle is in that diet shift. ‘Our consumption pattern is something emotional and deeply ingrained,’ says agricultural economist Erik Mathijs (KU Leuven). Under his chairmanship, a European report will be published on this subject, that states that the government must intervene.[7] "Otherwise it won't work. Consumers must be taken out of their habits. By making sustainable food more accessible. You can play with the tax on vegetables, fruit and meat. Or draw up rules about where which type of food can be stored in the supermarkets. The government must help force the cultural tipping point where meat becomes less the norm.”

Forcing this is quite allowed, says Joost Dessein, bio-engineer and anthropologist (UGent). "We don't have the time to gently take people by the hand. Anyone who believes that consumers will change menus on their own is living in a bubble. My wife, who teaches to students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, has students in her class who have never seen a leek at home. Go for it drastically. Make largely vegetarian menus in schools, company restaurants or hospitals. Give the incentives to the food industry to offer more vegetarian options. Yes, food is identity. But we can cultivate evolution in that.”

3. Focus on food producers

The farmer is on the defensive. He desperately puts signs with "Save our farmers" in the yard. But in a sustainable model, food producers have a central role. "The answer to their frustration is simple," said Benjamin Bodirsky, a nitrogen and agriculture expert at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.[8] "You don't have to stop. But change your revenue model, that is now: big or dead. Stop producing cauliflowers or chops on a large scale, where you barely make a profit. And opt for a model with diversity and larger margins.”

The point of the debate about nitrogen or nature restoration is not that fewer farmers are needed. It is true that they should focus on something else, such as the production of beans, peas or lupins. ‘If you develop a market for those vegetable proteins, it becomes profitable to set up production chains for them,’ says Erik Mathijs. "Then you reach the tipping point where there is also a revenue model."

Kurt Sannen made an estimate with the Institute for Agricultural, Fisheries and Food Research (Ilvo)[9] of what dairy farming can yield for farmers and the environment if we close cycles. “You have a lower yield per cow, but a big cost saving for the farmer – who spends about a third of his expenditure on the purchase of concentrates and fertilisers. Moreover, there is less nitrogen pressure at an area level.”

This transition does not mean that all farmers have to go organic. "Please don't," says Honnay. "That's not realistic. What you produce is more important than how. Growing peas or beans can also be done intensively. In addition, there is room for mixed farms and in vulnerable areas for extensive livestock farming. You pay those livestock farmers for their role as guardians of grasslands.”

The financial incentive is essential. “Farmers are trapped in the industrial model,” says Norbertine Luc Vankrunkelsven, who, as a publicist and founder of Wervel[10], has been arguing for a healthier food system for decades. "They can't get there on their own. The government must guide and compensate them intensively.” The money is available. The European Commission spent 55 billion euros on agricultural subsidies in 2021. However, these resources go largely to intensification and stable techniques. We can just as well use those billions differently.

To make a difference, the industry must go along, some say. 'You see fascinating shifts there,' suggests Nico Muzi, European lobbyist on sustainable food. “From startups experimenting with meat grown in breweries to multinationals making the shift to plant-based. Danish Crown, the largest pig producer in Europe, sees its growth mainly in the vegetable division. Albert Heijn[11] wants to help its customers get 60 percent of their protein from plant-based foods by 2030.”

Although that is a matter for discussion. “There is a real chance that the industry will bend this model to its will,” says Joost Dessein. “Closed cycles can also be dominated by a few powerful players. For me, the food revolution is first and foremost a struggle for farmers' emancipation. Now their frustrations are captured by the far right. And by the agro-industry, that uses them as a camouflage to protect the status quo. Let's face it: the new wind will not blow out of that direction.”

Source

Ine Renson: Zo kan een minder verwoestend voedselsysteem eruitzien, in: De Standaard, 24-06-2023, https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20230623_97208003

[1] The Cerrado is a vast ecoregion of tropical savanna in eastern Brazil, being present in the states of Goiás, Mato Grosso do Sul, Mato Grosso, Tocantins, Maranhão, Piauí, Bahia, Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Paraná and the Federal District. The core areas of the Cerrado biome are the Brazilian highlands – the Planalto. The main habitat types of the Cerrado consist of forest savanna, wooded savanna, park savanna and gramineous-woody savanna. The Cerrado also includes savanna wetlands and gallery forests

[2] The Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek (Institute for Nature and Forest Research), usually abbreviated as INBO, is the research centre for nature of Flanders. It falls under the Environment, Nature and Energy (LNE) policy area of the Flemish government. INBO is the independent research institute of the Flemish government that supports and evaluates biodiversity policy and management through applied scientific research, data and knowledge access.

[3] VIB is a research institute located in Flanders, Belgium. The main objective of VIB is to strengthen the excellence of Flemish life sciences research and to turn the results into new economic growth.

[4] This report was prepared by EAT and is an adapted summary of the Commission Food in The Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets From Sustainable Food Systems.  https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/eat-lancet-commission-summary-report/

[5] Published in Animal Frontiers, the official journal of the American Society of Animal Science, of the European Federation of Animal Sciences and of the American Meat Science Association, the official proceedings of the Dublin Declaration, the global research scientific literature emphasizing the nutritional, economic and environmental benefits of meat production. More than 1000 scientists from all over the world have joined the initiative, contributing through their work with studies and research. https://www.efanews.eu/item/31673-dublin-declaration-over-a-thousand-scientists-adhere-to-it.html

[6] Leroy, F., Ederer, P. The Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock. Nat Food 4, 438–439 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00784-z,

[7] PHD THESIS (LIRIAS); Exploring resilience capacities for managing challenges in agriculture; Verkenning van veerkrachtcapaciteiten om uitdagingen in de landbouw aan te gaan; Coopmans, Isabeau; Mathijs, Erik (Supervisor); Wauters, Erwin (Co supervisor);2023-02-01

[8] The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK, German: Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung) is a German government-funded research institute addressing crucial scientific questions in the fields of global change, climate impacts, and sustainable development. Ranked among the top environmental think tanks worldwide, it is one of the leading research institutions and part of a global network of scientific and academic institutions working on questions of global environmental change. It is a member of the Leibniz Association, whose institutions perform research on subjects of high relevance to society.

[9] The Instituut voor Landbouw-, Visserij- en Voedingsonderzoek (ILVO) (Institute for Agricultural, Fisheries and Food Research) is an independent scientific research centre of the Government of Flanders. It is commissioned by the government to contribute to making the agriculture, fisheries and agri-food sector more sustainable. Initially in Flanders, but by extension also in Belgium, Europe and the rest of the world.

[10] Wervel (=Vertebra) is a movement that works on a healthy food system from a connection. We raise issues and make alternatives visible. With fair prices for farmers, people who take food into their own hands again and the restorative power of agroecology. In short: with respect for farmers, eaters and our planet. https://wervel.be/over-ons/

Tính đến hôm nay là 4 tháng kể từ ngày chuyển sang chế độ flexitarian. Mình đã ăn tổng cộng 36 bữa thịt, tương đương  18 ngày ăn thịt và 103 ngày ăn chay. Vị chi 1 tuần ăn thịt 1 ngày.

Từ 2020, trước khi trở về việt nam, mình đã nhen nhóm trong đầu ý nghĩ khi nào quay lại Can mình sẽ theo chế độ less meat. Hồi ấy chủ yếu là do ghét thái thịt rửa thịt, chỉ một phần nhỏ là do ăn nhiều thịt không tốt.

Về VN mẹ mình thái thịt rửa thịt rồi nên mình cũng không mind lắm. Nhà mình cơ bản cũng ăn uống khá healthy, ít dầu mỡ và luôn có một đĩa rau đầy ự + một bát canh đầy rau. Thi thoảng mình cũng hay đi ăn chay cùng dì hoặc chị bống. Dì mình đã ăn chay hơn 5(?) năm rồi, còn chị bống ăn chay parttime, ban ngày ăn chay, tối về ăn thịt cùng gia đình, cũng là less meat.

Tháng 8 mình đã được khai sáng bằng một quyển sách về nutrition, đọc xong không còn mặn mà gì thịt cá nữa luôn. Ăn uống ở nhà thì cũng chỉ gắp rau thôi chứ không ăn thịt. Quay lại Can mới bắt đầu nghiêm túc. Tuy nhiên chế độ mình theo là Flexitarian, tức là hạn chế ăn thịt thôi. Ở nhà mình nấu chay, còn đi ăn hàng thì vẫn ăn thịt cá bình thường.

Tại sao lại là best of both worlds?

Về cơ bản ăn thuần chay sẽ không cung cấp đủ dinh dưỡng. Vitamin B12, giúp tạo hồng cầu và cần thiết cho não bộ, chỉ có ở trong thực phẩm từ động vật. Những người thiếu vitamin B12 thường sẽ có biểu hiện của nhợt nhạt, chân tay mệt mỏi, lâu dài có thể ảnh hưởng đến trí nhớ. Tuy nhiên để thiếu Vitamin B12 trầm trọng, phải ăn chay trường tới 3 năm mới có thể thấy được sự khác biệt. Mình không strictly vegan nên so far mình cảm thấy vẫn rất khỏe mạnh.

Mọi người hay hỏi tại sao mình không theo Vegetarian. Cơ bản thì mình đã kiêng dairy đã 3 năm rồi, trứng thì thực ra không healthy lắm. Mà mình ăn chay vì sức khoẻ là chính nên mình cũng không quan tâm vấn đề trứng công nghiệp có trống hay không.

Ngoài ra mình cảm thấy chế độ này khá sustainable. Dù ăn chay nhưng thi thoảng vẫn có thể làm bát phở bò tái, lâu lâu lại đá một bát bún bò huế hay đi ăn sushi, gà rán hàn quốc. Không vấn đề gì. Dù có ăn 2 ngày thịt một tuần đi nữa thì mình cũng đã khoẻ mạnh hơn người thường nhiều lần rồi :))

Khác biệt?