Main moments
Written by Eirik Mofoss, founder of the Centre for Long-Term Policy, and Gunhild Stordalen, founder of EAT.
Nordic Council of Ministers recommended last year that we should eat drastically less meat, for health and for climate, and Norway has committed to lead the way.
This week, EAT and partners came up with the most ambitious economic analysis of the world's food systems so far:”Food System Economics Commission“(FSEC). There, leading economists and scientists show how the enormous hidden costs of the food system will continue to increase -- unless current policies and practices change.
Due to Norwegian food policy, meat products are often cheaper than plant-based alternatives. It's both illogical and unfortunate.
Before you buy meat again, you should reflect on what this really costs -- and who pays for it.
Meat production is highly inefficient, with an enormous climate and environmental footprint. Whole 96 percent of the energy in beef production is lost. Even for more efficient chicken production, nine calories are required in to get one out.
When 94 percent of subsidies go to animal products, there is not much left for vegetables and legumes, for farmers who want to bet green. Meat production is also exempt from increased climate taxes in Parliament's climate plan. In practice, this is probably a subsidy. Therefore, when you choose meat in the store, taxpayers have to pay extra.
Also, today's children, their children and grandchildren pay. A more plant-rich diet is needed to avoid climate catastrophe and ecological collapse. The world's food systems now account for a third of global climate emissions, meat production accounts for well over half. Production of beef, for example, escapes 60 times more CO₂ than chickpeas.
Future generations will also have to live with higher risk of pandemics, because genetically similar animals living closely, with poor health and welfare, allow new diseases to more easily develop.
Industrial livestock production also accounts for the lion's share of the world's antibiotic use, and WHO considers antibiotic resistance one of the biggest threats to global health. By 2050, more people may die from resistant bacteria than from cancer.
However, we are not the ones who bear most of the bill. Simply put, the chicken fillet is cheap because the chicken itself pays dearly, through poor living conditions and welfare.
Chickens most live in large, overly densely populated halls and fed huge amounts of food to grow as quickly as possible, living a monotonous and sometimes painful existence, created to provide consumers with the lowest possible price.
This applies to 70 million chickens in Norway every year. It is, of course, possible to conduct livestock production with good animal welfare and health, but then it costs more.
And then there's the farmer. Norway has a dysfunctional regulatory model, engineered to provide us with the cheapest possible food. Farmers have to deal with max prices, and industrial and grocery trade is squeezing the margins that are left.
Recently let the farmers bring out numbers showing that red meat is underfunded by an average of 25 kr/kg and milk by 3 kr/liter. The right meat price must reflect the actual cost, for both the farmer, public health, future generations and animals. Fair payment for the farmer alone will therefore significantly increase the retail price.
The FSEC is clear that there is no “one size fits all” solution. But all countries need to develop national strategies, focusing on five areas:
Political Incentives: The production of the most harmful and unsustainable foods should be taxed, and the proceeds used to support conversion to better alternatives.
Modified subsidies: Producers should get support to turn production over to healthy eating and sustainable practices rather than the subsidies that currently seem the opposite.
Healthier diet: Consumption of animal products must be reduced dramatically in many parts of the world and consumption of healthy plant foods must be increased everywhere.
Innovation: New agricultural technologies, such as remote sensing, sensors and market-access apps, or changing government procurement, can make agriculture radically more efficient while reducing emissions and protecting natural diversity.
Vulnerable and affected groups: Transformation of the food system should not result in negative effects such as increased food prices and loss of jobs. Measures can be subsidies and support, and especially for the most vulnerable.
At the Dubai Climate Summit, Norway committed to taking a global leadership role on healthy, sustainable and fair food systems. We know what it takes. New dietary advice is good, but not enough.
Now we can't wait to see action!
