Toward “better” Meat? Aligning Meat Sourcing Strategies With Corporate Climate And Sustainability Goals

Generated Summary

This report, conducted by the World Resources Institute (WRI), delves into the environmental impacts of terrestrial animal agriculture, emphasizing the potential of “better meat” sourcing strategies to align with corporate climate and sustainability goals. The study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining a comprehensive review of existing literature with interviews of 17 stakeholders, including food service providers, retailers, food manufacturers, and non-profit organizations across North America and Europe. The research explores the definition of “better meat,” analyzes the co-benefits and trade-offs associated with different production systems and practices, and examines strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from meat production. The central objective is to provide guidance to food providers on how to achieve climate and nature goals while sourcing “better meat,” balancing multiple sustainability priorities, and minimizing potential trade-offs.

Key Findings & Statistics

• Meat and dairy production account for approximately two-thirds of all emissions from agriculture and more than three-quarters of agricultural land use.
• Animal agriculture is responsible for 11-20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and over 30 percent of global methane emissions.
• As the global population grows to 10 billion people by 2050, strategies to reduce GHG emissions from meat production and shift diets towards plant-based foods are necessary.
• The study found that “better meat” can refer to meat production with a wide variety of attributes, including environmental performance (climate, land, water use, water quality, biodiversity, and soils), social and ethical performance (animal welfare, local sourcing, livelihoods, nutrition and public health, antimicrobial resistance, equity, and social justice), and/or economic performance (quality, profitability).
• Beef production results in an average of 310 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per kg of protein, whereas poultry production emits 45 kg CO₂e.
• Studies show that shifting to production systems associated with “better meat” often results in higher environmental impacts per kilogram of protein.
• The amount of land needed under systems marketed as “better” was higher than under “conventional” systems more than 90 percent of the time.
• Shifting from beef to chicken (lower emissions and other environmental impacts, but a much higher number of animals slaughtered), the data also indicate that improvements in animal welfare within an animal product (e.g., slower-growth chicken) tend to lead to higher climate and other environmental impacts, although not in all cases.
• Beef production results in an average of 310 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions per kg of protein, whereas poultry production emits 45 kg CO₂e and production of pulses emits 6 kg CO₂e.
• The high resource use of animal-based foods is due to the animals’ need to convert calories and protein in crop- or grass-based feeds into human-edible calories and protein.
• Beef production results in an average of 310 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions per kg of protein, whereas poultry production emits 45 kg CO₂e and production of pulses emits 6 kg CO₂e.
• For example, beef production results in an average of 310 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions per kg of protein, whereas poultry production emits 45 kg CO₂e and production of pulses emits 6 kg CO₂e.
• Beef production results in an average of 310 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per kg of protein, whereas poultry production emits 45 kg CO₂e.
• The study shows that, of the alternative production systems in the LCA literature, a shift from a conventional system to an alternative system increased GHG emissions per kg of protein produced in 71 percent of cases, while increasing land use per kg of protein produced in 94 percent of cases.
• For example, beef production results in an average of 310 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions per kg of protein.
• The amount of land needed to produce a kg of protein under alternative systems (associated with “better meat”) was higher than “conventional” more than 90 percent of the time.
• Overall, the LCA data on environmental impacts of alternative production systems present a mixed and perhaps counterintuitive picture.
• Shifting from conventional systems to alternative systems associated with “better meat” results in higher environmental impacts per kg of protein in a majority of cases in the published LCA literature.
• The least predictable outcome was the effect on water use, where 55 percent of the data points on alternative production systems had higher environmental impacts than conventional, and 45 percent had lower impacts.
• For example, to produce a kg of protein, more than 100 times as many chickens need to be slaughtered compared to cows.
• The company first simulates a pure “less meat” strategy to reduce scope 3 emissions and carbon opportunity costs by a combined 25 percent. To do so, it finds that sourcing 50 percent less beef, 20 percent less of other meats, and 15 percent less dairy—and shifting the purchases toward pulses, soy, and vegetables—achieves this 25 percent reduction in climate impacts.
• If the company then shifted all chicken and egg purchases toward higher-welfare products, it would lead to 15 percent higher GHG emissions and 25 percent higher land use.
• Using Table 7, it estimates that sourcing grass-fed beef could lead to 25 percent higher GHG emissions and 100 percent higher land use.

Other Important Findings

• The term “better meat” lacks a clear and universally agreed definition and can entail trade-offs.
• Companies should calculate the GHG emissions baseline of their food purchases, shift toward lower-emissions products like plant-based foods, define meat sourcing priorities by product, assess potential environmental impacts of the new sourcing strategy, source “even less meat” in cases where “better meat” increases environmental impacts, and engage with suppliers to improve practices and track progress.
• To achieve their sustainability goals, food providers need robust, evidence-based information to optimize their meat sourcing strategies.
• The striking role of meat – particularly beef and lamb – in climate change makes clear that the world must shift toward a more plant-based diet.
• Companies aiming to achieve multiple sustainability goals related to the food they purchase and serve are often faced with tradeoffs between those goals.
• Retailers, manufacturers, and food service providers shape the “food environment” and heavily influence consumer choices.
• In recent years, pairing strategies to source “less meat” with those to source “better meat” has emerged as a potential climate mitigation strategy, and the concept of “better meat” has gained traction as a way to describe more sustainable forms of terrestrial animal agriculture.
• Meat and dairy production—and especially production of ruminant meats such as beef and lamb—is generally more resource-intensive than production of plant-based proteins.
• Beyond the basic trade-off in a shift from beef to chicken (lower emissions and other environmental impacts, yet higher number of animals slaughtered), the data also indicate that improvements in animal welfare within an animal product (e.g., slow-growth chicken) tend to lead to higher climate and other environmental impacts, although not in all cases.
• To design sourcing strategies to achieve climate and nature goals that include “better meat,” companies should calculate the GHG emissions baseline of their food purchases, shift toward lower-emissions products like plant-based foods, define meat sourcing priorities by product (e.g., lower-emissions beef, higher-welfare chicken), assess potential environmental impacts of the new sourcing strategy, source “even less meat” in cases where “better meat” increases environmental impacts, and engage with suppliers to improve practices and track progress.
• A shift toward plant-based foods is a multiple win for climate, nature, and animal welfare.
• A major challenge for companies in reducing their scope 3 GHG emissions is that complex beef supply chains hinder traceability back to the farms and ranches where the meat is produced.
• In an ideal world, “better meat” production could lead to improvements across all sustainability goals; however, our analysis shows that companies with quantitative sustainability goals need to consider both co-benefits and trade-offs across all goals when designing their meat sourcing strategies.

Limitations Noted in the Document

• The term “better meat” lacks a clear and universally agreed definition.
• LCAs generally do not account for on-farm biodiversity and soil health.
• The impacts of management practices on soil carbon sequestration can be complex and hard to predict.
• There is a lack of studies linking agricultural livelihoods to “better” meat.
• There is a lack of studies linking equity and social justice issues to “better” meat.
• The analysis is based on a limited number of studies.
• The data on water pollution and water use did not have statistical significance.

Conclusion

The research emphasizes the need for food providers to move towards sustainable practices by reducing GHG emissions, enhancing animal welfare, and minimizing land use, while recognizing the complexities and trade-offs involved. The report underscores the critical importance of shifting diets towards plant-based foods and alternative proteins to improve both environmental and animal welfare outcomes. This strategy is also relevant if a company wishes to switch to other alternative systems (e.g., organic) to appeal to consumers. Companies are encouraged to establish a GHG emissions baseline, prioritize lower-emission products, define sourcing priorities, assess environmental impacts, and engage with suppliers. The analysis shows that companies with sustainability goals need to consider both co-benefits and trade-offs across all goals when designing meat sourcing strategies. The report highlights that, in many cases, sourcing “better meat” can lead to higher environmental impacts per kilogram of protein. Thus, the study recommends that companies consider reducing their meat purchasing and shifting towards more plant-based options as a more effective strategy for reaching climate and nature targets. By adopting the recommended strategies, food providers can contribute to climate and nature goals, enhance animal welfare, and minimize environmental trade-offs. To address the challenge of reducing their scope 3 GHG emissions, companies are advised to engage beef suppliers, purchase certified lower-emission beef, and prioritize shifts towards lower-emission foods. The study’s findings highlight that these approaches can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the associated environmental impacts. The research underscores the significance of balancing climate and animal welfare goals, offering practical recommendations to the food industry. It encourages food companies to prioritize and engage with suppliers to improve production practices. The report confirms the critical importance of shifting diets high in animal-based foods toward plant-based foods to improve both environmental and animal welfare outcomes.

DOI

10.46830/wrirpt.22.00006