Dear members of the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security,
Please find below our comments on the V0 draft of the study: “Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition, including the role of livestock”. We have organized them in two sections: “general comments”, which address the main questions proposed in the report, and “specific comments”, which address specific sections and paragraphs. The latter were chosen as representative of similar paragraphs and information put forward in several parts of the report.
We hope these suggestions are useful, and look forward to reading the new version.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Cynthia Schuck, PhD, Oxon – Dept. of Environment, Brazilian Vegetarian Society
Dr. Eric Slywitch, MD – Department of Nutrition, Brazilian Vegetarian Society
General Comments
The report asks “How can the goals of FSN be achieved in ways and in systems that conserve natural resources, reduce pollution and adjust to climate change, and respect social and cultural values?”
Indeed, a growing body of evidence shows that the health of humanity is intrinsically linked to the health of the environment.
The environmental crises that are already unfolding are, however, greatly amplified by livestock production. We are 7 billion humans, but raise and slaughter over 70 billion land animals – and an even greater number of aquatic animals – every year for use as food. Livestock production puts enormous pressure on every ecosystem on Earth: in addition to producing solid, liquid and gaseous waste in massive amounts, each animals requires a fraction of land, water and food. Overall, 75% of the arable land on the planet is used as pasture or for feed production (Foley et al 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478:337-42). Indeed, as acknowledged in the report, “eating animals rather than edible plants is inefficient in terms of calories harvested per hectare” – leading to inefficient land use, habitat loss and waste of natural resources that could otherwise be used more efficiently. In addition, the major impact of livestock production on soil erosion, desertification, water scarcity and pollution, as well as on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, is also well established. Population growth and a rising demand for animal products – projected to increase from 70 to 100% by 2050 (Godfray et al 2010 Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327:812-818) – will further intensify existing pressures on climate, land and water. Considering the present use of 75% of arable land for animal agriculture, it becomes clear that food security will not be achieved if animal production increases further to meet the demands of a growing and more affluent population, even if existing yield gaps in agricultural production become narrower. If dietary patterns are left unchecked, over 1 billion hectares of arable land (the size of the entire European continent) would be needed (Tilman et al 2011, PNAS 08:20260–4), with simultaneous increases in greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, nitrogen, phosphorous and water use. This is an unsustainable scenario.
The potential to mitigate most of the environmental damage associated with the livestock sector is greater through changes in consumption than through supply-side mitigation measures. Reducing the consumption of animal products is central to achieving the sustainable development goals as established in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations. A reduction of livestock consumption would help achieve food security and improved nutrition (Goal 2), healthy lives and well-being for all (Goal 3), availability and sustainable management of water resources (Goal 6), sustainable consumption and production patterns (Goal 12) and combat climate change and its impacts (Goal 13).
In a second part, the report focuses on “how effective policies can be designed and implemented to achieve food security and nutritional goals across and within different countries and societal groups”.
While there has been a number of success stories in low-income countries in tackling under-nutrition, obesity has rapidly become a global epidemic. The sharp increase in prevalence and the associated health risks, co-morbidities and costs have made it a major public health challenge at a global scale.
In Latin America, for example, the nutritional transition has been largely driven by the widespread offer of cheaper food products low in nutritional value and high in energy, sugar, animal fats and proteins, as well as by unregulated advertising practices to which poorer populations are particularly vulnerable. Currently, these food products are often more accessible than fresh fruits and vegetables. A number of African countries are following the same steps. The higher consumption of livestock products, in particular, has been also shown to be an important risk factor for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and some cancers, further adding to the burden of malnutrition.
Acknowledgment of the heavy environmental footprint and public health burden of the increasing consumption of livestock products is therefore paramount for the design of effective prevention and mitigation strategies aimed at promoting healthy and sustainable diets. Overall, shifting global demand for animal products is one of the most promising means to promote a healthy, safe and sustainable future for all.
Specific Comments
Report. Page8, lines 24-30 “the meat and livestock sector is central to sustainable agricultural development. It accounts for 40 percent of global agricultural GDP and makes a huge positive contribution to livelihoods and nutrition including for poor and vulnerable people in the developing world. An estimated 1 billion poor people, many of them women, derive at least part of their livelihood from livestock. It has been one of the fastest growing sectors in global agriculture, due to rapid demand growth in low-income and emerging economies. That trend is set to continue to meet a 70 percent projected increase in demand for livestock products by 2050, almost all of which will be in developing countries”.
Comment. This sentence implies that the livestock sector is central to sustainable agricultural development because of its pervasive influence in today’s societies. However, mitigating hunger, improving nutrition, increasing food security and lessening environmental pressures on natural resources and ecosystems all depend on making the livestock sector less central. A shift towards the substitution of livestock by crops should also have major benefits for those who derive their livelihood from it, as the amount of land and natural resources to raise livestock is considerably higher than that required for the production of similar amounts plant-based protein, or calories harvested, even when compared to highly productive livestock systems.
Report Pg18. 37-48. Nutritionally, meat and other animal products such as milk and eggs globally provide 13 percent of total calories, 28 percent of dietary protein, and are sources of vitamins and key micronutrients, several of which are not found in plant foods, thus contributing to optimal nutrition. They are valuable in combating malnutrition and a range of nutritional deficiencies in particular for disadvantaged and vulnerable people, including the elderly, lactating mothers and infants. Around two billion people suffer from micronutrient deficiencies including at least half of children worldwide aged 6 months to 5 years (Ahmed et al., 2012). In particular, there is severe and widespread deficiency of iron, zinc, vitamin A, iodine and folate, all of which are present in animal-sourced foods (ASFs). Indeed, ASFs are probably the world’s most important source of nutrient-rich foods in diets and studies show the health benefits of providing ASFs to undernourished populations (Gibson, 2011). Milk consumption is especially associated with increased height, and meat consumption with increased cognitive development.
Comment. That ASF provide only 13% of total calories consumed, while requiring 75% of all arable land of the planet for its production, is illustrative of the unsustainability of animal agriculture, even under putative increases in productivity.
In terms of nutrition, higher levels of ASF consumption now represent a major threat to malnutrition, morbidity and mortality from non-communicable diseases. As acknowledged in the report “many studies show an association between meat consumption (especially red and processed meat) and cardiovascular disease (including strokes), some cancers, diabetes and all cause mortality (Micha et al., 2012; Larsson and Orsini, 2014). There are also plausible mechanisms which livestock products may have a causal role. For example, meat is a source of carcinogens formed during high-temperature cooking of meat and ASFs are sources of saturated fat, associated with higher risk of cardiovascular disease.” These trends should be intensified with the projected urbanization of societies in all continents. Additionally, a large number of nutritional deficiencies are associated to the poor consumption of fruits and vegetables, which is increasingly below recommended levels in high- and low-income countries alike. As recognized by the national dietary guidelines of several countries, a plant-based diet can be healthy in all stages of life. Iron, zinc, vitamin A, iodine and folate are all present in plant-based food sources. For example, beta-carotene (a source of vitamin A) is abundant in carrots, kale and pumpkins. Beans and other whole grain sources are rich sources of zinc and iron – cheaper than meat. Absorption of these micronutrients can be further increased when soaked in water for some hours before cooking and combined with food sources rich in vitamin C. Dark leafy greens are also rich in iron and calcium. It is only if a population consumes a monotonous plant-based diet that dietary bioavailability of micronutrients such as iron and zinc can be low. Promoting a diversified diet is therefore essential. It is also important to consider that consumption of ASFs is not a guarantee for the absence of nutritional deficiencies. Folic acid, for instance, is destroyed by heat. Therefore, meat is only a good source of folic acid when consumed in its raw form (a practice not recommended considering the increased risk of contamination). Iodine is not synthetized by animals. Instead, it needs to be supplied to livestock when not naturally available in the region where it is raised. Indeed, a number of epidemiological studies show that micronutrient deficiencies are widespread in societies with meat-rich diets. Milk consumption can be especially detrimental in populations characterized by a high prevalence of lactose intolerance, as is the case in many Asian and African countries.
Report Pg. 26, lines6-9. “For this increase in access to animal-sourced foods, livestock numbers need to increase, but so too will the productivity of these animals, the latter being particularly important if natural resources (particularly water) are to be used wisely, and environmental pressures and greenhouse gas emissions are to be mitigated”. Report Pg. 43, 31-35. “Globally, increases in livestock productivity in the recent past have been driven mostly by scientific and technological developments in breeding, nutrition/feeding and animal health. However, there is still a big yield gap to be addressed that holds the potential to increase production and efficiency in a sustainable way”.
Comment. Proposals aimed at curbing the negative effects of livestock production have focused predominantly on the intensification of the sector, particularly the intensification of animal farming systems. The cost-effectiveness of these options relative to demand-side mitigation policies is, however, often ignored. Due to the low energy efficiency typical of meat, egg and dairy production, large areas (many of which high-grade arable land) are used inefficiently to produce feed for animals raised intensively. Water and fertilizer are similarly wasted in large volumes. Intensive animal farming is also associated with high levels of water and soil pollution. The technical and logistic costs of existing solutions to mitigate these and other environmental by-products of animal farming are often prohibitive to small farmers.
As suggested in the report, many of the costs of intensive animal farming systems are transferred to animals. Productivity gains often stem from the selection and manufacturing of fast-growing and/or highly productive breeds. A common outcome of this process is a high incidence of bone and joint disorders, among other anatomical and physiological diseases associated with chronic pain. Other means to increase productivity also include reducing the amount of feed per animal, age at slaughter and the confinement of animals in high densities, in an environment that prevents them from fulfilling basic behavioral, physiological and psychological needs. Palliative measures (such as the extraction of teeth, horns, tails and beaks) to prevent physical harm and mutilation as a by-product of chronic stress are commonly employed. Poor welfare conditions also increase susceptibility to diseases – routinely managed with the use of antibiotics in large amounts.
Productivity gains at the cost of animal welfare goes against the idea – put forth in the report – that “Animal welfare is increasingly recognised as an important issue, and as a characteristic of sustainable agricultural development (Reisch et al., 2013)”. Moreover, as pointed out in the report “Improvements in efficiency may not be sufficient to close the disconnect between increasing scarcity of resources and rising demands for ASF. In Sweden, for example, GHG per kg of chicken fell by 22 percent between 1990 and 2005, but consumption increased by 180 percent during the same period, with a resultant total emissions increase of 150 percent (Cederberg et al., 2009)”. Indeed, productivity gains are often accompanied by falling prices and subsequent increases in demand, which can partially or fully override environmental savings achieved.
Report Pg.50. 24-25. Accessibility of ASF, including fish (HLPE, 2014a), is a major determinant of ensuring nutrition security.
Comment. If not restricted to a few rural, isolated or pastoral societies, this conclusion contradicts several of the arguments put forward in previous sections, which acknowledge that livestock “contributes to many nutrition, health, social and environmental problems”.
We hope these comments are useful in tailoring the report.
With best regards
Dr. Cynthia Schuck, PhD, Oxon – Dept. of Environment, Braz. Vegetarian Society
Dr. Eric Slywitch, MD – Department of Nutrition, Brazilian Vegetarian Society
Cynthia Schuck