By
Nick Collins
Published: 7:33AM GMT 12 Feb 2010
Note: this article and report have been
framed to still be as anti-meat oriented as possible, contradicting the very
findings of this study by of all things the WWF environmental group. Who must have been shocked out of their minds
with the results and more than likely never wanted this study to see the light
of day.
It has often been claimed that avoiding red meat is
beneficial to the environment, because it lowers emissions and less land is
used to produce alternatives.
But a study by Cranfield University, commissioned by WWF,
the environmental group, found a substantial number of meat substitutes – such
as soy, chickpeas and lentils – were more harmful to the
environment because they were imported into
Britain from overseas.
The study concluded: "A switch from
beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could
actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the
The results showed that the amount of foreign land
required to produce the substitute products – and the
potential destruction of forests to make way for farmland – outweighed the negatives of rearing beef and lamb in the
An increase in vegetarianism could result in the collapse of British
farming, the study
warned, causing meat production to move overseas where there may be less legal
protection of forests and uncultivated land.
Meat substitutes were also found to be highly processed,
often requiring large amounts of energy to produce. The study recognised that the environmental merits
of vegetarianism depended largely on which types of foods were consumed as an
alternative to meat.
Donal Murphy-Bokern, one of the
authors of the study and former farming and science coordinator at the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told a newspaper: "For
some people, tofu and other meat substitutes symbolise environmental
friendliness but they are not necessarily the badge of merit people claim.
"Simply eating more bread, pasta and
potatoes (With your meat
products) . . . is more
environmentally friendly."
Lord Stern of Bradford, the
climate change economist, claimed last October that a vegetarian diet was
beneficial to the planet.
He told a newspaper: "Meat
is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts
enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."
Liz O'Neill, spokeswoman for the
Vegetarian Society, told The Times: "The figures used in the report
are based on a number of questionable assumptions about how vegetarians balance
their diet and how the food industry might respond to increased demand.
"If you're aiming to reduce
your environmental impact by going vegetarian then it's obviously not a good
idea to rely on highly processed products, but that doesn't undermine the fact
that the livestock industry causes enormous damage."
The National Farmers'