Opinion: Meat industry’s dubious claims of sustainability at COP28

The inconvenient truth is that animal agriculture, particularly beef production, is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

At the COP28 climate conference, major meat producers — armed with an elaborate communications strategy — pitched an audacious message: meat is sustainable nutrition. The narrative pushed by these meat proponents is not only misleading but also dangerous for our planet and human health.

The meat industry’s primary focus has been to promote “scientific evidence” supporting the idea that meat is environmentally friendly. However, this claim directly contradicts overwhelming scientific evidence. The inconvenient truth is that animal agriculture, particularly the production of red meat, is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The livestock sector, responsible for a staggering 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, is a massive contributor to climate change. The methane emitted by livestock, a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, poses a severe threat to our climate stability.

The meat industry’s argument pivots on the concept of “regenerative agriculture,” emphasizing the role of grazing livestock in maintaining healthy soils that can sequester carbon. While this may sound appealing, scientists caution against relying on soils as a long-term carbon storage solution since any carbon sequestration can be easily reversed.

The meat industry’s attempt to portray itself as environmentally responsible through regenerative agriculture is a thinly veiled attempt to divert attention from the industry’s true impact.

As a physician, I am equally alarmed by the attempt to market meat as “sustainable nutrition.” Red meat consumption has long been linked to various adverse health conditions, including heart disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, stroke and kidney disease.

A recent study further solidified red meat’s link to type 2 diabetes, one of the most prevalent and damaging health conditions. It showed that red meat consumption is strongly linked to the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

There is also strong evidence that replacing red meat with plant-based products improves our health. Research has shown we can effectively reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and overall mortality by swapping animal-based foods such as red and processed meat with plant-based foods such as nuts or legumes.

The World Health Organization has classified processed meats as Group 1 carcinogens. This puts red meat in the same category as tobacco smoke and asbestos.

Addressing the cozy relationship between the government and the meat industry is essential to breaking the cycle, as governments must prioritize sustainable alternatives over outdated and environmentally harmful practices. Despite the urgent need for change, the meat industry is doubling down on its efforts to maintain the status quo, jeopardizing our chances of achieving meaningful emissions reductions in the food sector.

The meat industry’s attempt to portray itself as a champion of sustainability at COP28 is a deceptive tactic that disregards both the environmental and health impacts of meat consumption. As a physician, I implore policymakers to scrutinize the industry’s claims and prioritize evidence-based solutions that align with the urgent need to combat climate change and promote public health.

The stakes are too high to allow misleading narratives to overshadow the reality of the meat industry’s detrimental impact on our planet and our health.

Dr. Michael J. Martin is a physician and researcher at UC San Francisco, immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, and founder and president of Physicians Against Red Meat, which highlights the health risks associated with eating red meat.