There is a lot of talking about meat and its impacts on health and the environment, but not enough knowledge. Here’s a vademecum to talk about meat and its impacts correctly.

1) Meat production is not sustainable. It takes 15,000 litres of water to produce 1 kg of beef. False!

These estimates quantify the volume of water used and not the environmental impact of the water consumed in production. But not all water is the same: the groundwater does not have the same environmental impact as rainwater or discharged water. In Italy, 790 litres of water are needed to produce 1kg of beef because 80-90% of these water resources return to the natural water cycle. If we use classification for all foods, not considering the type of water used, we will find that chocolate and coffee are the most water-wasting, much more than meat.

Is it true that it takes 15,000 litres of water to produce 1kg of beef? Not really, especially in Italy: let’s see why. First, almost all of the data related to the water footprint of food has been published by the Water Footprint Network (WFN), through analysis that does not quantify the environmental impact associated with water use, but only the amount of water used. With the Water Footprint, the amount of water used in production processes is usually calculated. It is the so-called ‘virtual water’ that, when it comes to meat, also includes that used to cultivate fodder necessary for feeding livestock and at the slaughter stage.

This method of assessing water consumption in the livestock sector calculates the water footprint of a product by adding ‘blue’ water from the groundwater or surface water bodies, ‘green’ water, that is evapotranspirated rainwater during crop growth, and ‘grey’ water, the volume of water needed to dilute and purify production water discharges. Using this type of classification, we can see that at the top of the products that consume the most water resources, there are foods generally considered “harmless”, when not an absolute panacea, such as cocoa paste, chocolate, and coffee that are worth 24,000 litres/kg, 17,000 litres/kg and almost 19,000 litres/kg respectively.

In Italy, for example, to produce one kg of beef is used 25% less water than the world average. A second critical issue is that, taking into account the overall value (world average) and ignoring the local context in which production and animal farming occur, it does not relate the withdrawal of water with its availability on that territory.

Taking into account the actual consumption of water per 1 kg of meat in an efficient supply chain, we can say that in Italy, 790 litres are actually consumed to produce 1kg of beef*(Alberto Stanislao Atzori, Caterina Canalis, Ana Helena Dias Francesconi, Giuseppe Pulina, A preliminary study on a new approach to estimate water resource allocation: the net water footprint applied to animal products, Science Direct). And even when animal farming does not stand out for its efficiency, consumption is not more than 7000 litres, half of what is commonly estimated. On a global level, the entire Italian meat sector (cattle, poultry and swine) uses 80-90% of water resources that are part of the natural water cycle and that are returned to the environment such as rainwater, while only 10-20% of the water necessary to produce 1 kg of meat is actually consumed.

2) Farms are responsible for the spread of covid-19 epidemic. False!

The association between modern farms, i.e., those widespread throughout the Western world and Italy, and the spread of viruses such as Covid-19 is unfounded and devoid of scientific basis. It is an instrumental and ideological correlation. The leap of species at the origin of viruses occurs from the mixture of wild animals, domestic animals and humans: modern animal farming for livestock use represents a barrier instead to protect both human and animal health. In “protected” farms, there are strict and high biosecurity measures and strict rules and continuous veterinary controls are applied.

There is no scientific evidence that animals bred for livestock use can pose a danger to covid19 contagion and farms, especially intensive ones, are a biosecurity presidium for animals and humans, as all precautions are constantly taken to prevent exogenous infectious agents from compromising animal health and being transmitted to humans.

The development of Western animal husbandry and the construction and management of modern farms are based on scientific research results and on constant investments in animal health and biosecurity. Biosecurity within “protected” farms has been engaging for years all the players in the supply chain to guarantee optimal environments from the well-being point of view, microclimatic parameters, and potentially dangerous external agents. When experts foresee a risk of introducing zoonotic agents (for example, avian influenza brought by wild anatids in their migratory routes), the Ministry of Health adopts as a preventive purpose the obligation to keep indoors animals that are bred outdoors.

3) Farms pollute more than transport! False!

Looking at the livestock sector alone, in Italy, the total contribution to greenhouse gases is 4.6% (Ispra report). A Rome-Brussels air journey, for example, generates more emissions than the meat consumption of an Italian for a whole year under a balanced diet.

According to the FAO study “Tackling climate change through livestock”, the entire livestock sector worldwide has a climate-changing impact of 14.5% on total greenhouse gas emissions. In Europe, the whole agricultural sector is responsible for 10.3 % of greenhouse gas emissions. Almost 70 % of them come from the livestock sector and consist of greenhouse gases other than CO2 (methane and nitrous oxide). This means that thanks to the production efficiency and technological innovation achieved by the European Union, the impacts of the livestock system are 7.2%, already half of the world’s emissions. The Italian case is even more efficient: ISPRA has shown that the agricultural sector’s impact on the environment is 7.1%, of which 4.6% is attributable to the livestock sector.

The greenhouse effect’s leading causes are the presence in the atmosphere of gaseous substances such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. CO2 is mainly obtained from fossil fuels’ combustion processes such as oil and its derivatives, coal and wood. Through photosynthesis, plants can use CO2 carbon and “release” the oxygen that returns to the atmosphere, keeping the balance unchanged. A balance is broken not by livestock farming but by other activities such as heating, energy production, increasingly frequent transport, etc. Methane is emitted into the atmosphere, half by fossil gas extraction and distribution, 1/4 by ruminant digestive processes and the remaining 1/4 by rice paddies and other agricultural activities. This gas is obtained in animals (also wild animals and in termites) by the metabolism of some bacteria called “methanogens” found in animals’ environment and digestive system. Over the millennia, the increase in methane production has undoubtedly not depended on rice paddies and ruminants.

On the other hand, human activities involving the production of these greenhouse gases and, above all, the number of people who ‘contribute’ to climate gas emissions through the increasing exploitation of fossil fuels have increased considerably. For example, aircraft burn billions of tonnes of fuel by putting impressive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere: a single round-trip flight from Rome to Brussels generates more emissions than the meat consumption of an Italian for a whole year! (calculation made on Eco Passenger).

4) In Italy we eat 79.1 kg of meat per year, that is too much! False!

Estimates refer to apparent consumption, which also considers inedible parts. In Italy, in fact, the real on average consumption is about 37.9 kg of meat per year.

There is something that is not taken into account when accepting as accurate the excessive estimate of 79.1 kg, before the non-edible parts) of meat per year consumed per capita in Italy, which places our country in the third last place for consumption in Europe. In other words, this estimate is based on ‘apparent consumption’ which, unlike ‘real consumption’, also takes into account all the non-edible parts of the animal: tendons, bones, fat, cartilage…

Who cleared the field of misunderstandings has been the University of Bologna team’s impressive research work, coordinated by professor emeritus of Zootechnics Vincenzo Russo, together with the Study Commission established by ASPA (Scientific Association for Science and Animal Productions). “Real consumption of meat and fish in Italy” the title of the work of the study team that revised downwards the estimates on meat consumption so far available based solely on the amount of meat produced and imported, without taking into account that there are edible parts and inedible parts. The team’s work of the Italian researchers shows a different reality: the per capita consumption of total meat corresponds to 104 grams per day (and not almost 215 g), equal to 728 g per week and 37.9 kg per year, less than half of that 79.1 kg figure we are used to hear.

This consumption takes into account all meat (raw, cooked, transformed into cold cuts, present in mixed food preparations, canned, etc.) and the places where you consume it (house, restaurants, fast food, canteens, communities, stalls, etc.). Taking beef alone, actual consumption falls to 29 grams per day per capita, well below the WHO recommendations, which set the daily consumption of red meat at 100 gr, above which some health problems may begin to arise. (Source: Censis processing on Gira data – extracted from research Fondazione Censis “Gli italiani a tavola: cosa sta cambiando a tavola”, October 2016 – All types of meat, beef, pork, chicken, lamb, before non-edible parts)

5) Meat causes cancer, the WHO says that! False!

The WHO, through the IARC, has analysed the risk of developing it with excessive consumption of meat (far above the Italian one).

It is October 2015 when news spreads that the World Health Organization would establish the relationship between meat consumption and cancer. But that wasn’t the case. The IARC, the WHO agency that evaluates and classifies evidence of carcinogenicity of substances, classified red meat in category 2 A as “probably carcinogenic”, while processed meat in category 1 A “carcinogenic” alongside alcohol. The IARC has never claimed that red meat causes cancer but that excessive consumption of red and processed meat can contribute to the risk of only one type of cancer (out of the 156 known and classified), colorectal cancer.

The World Health Organization website states: “In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between the consumption of red meat and the development of colorectal cancers, as well as strong mechanistic evidence. Limited evidence indicates that a positive association between exposure to the agent and cancer has been observed. Still, other explanations for observations (technically referred to as a case, bias or confusion) could not be ruled out.” Therefore, reference is made to ‘excess’ consumption, not to consumption in a general sense, with an increase in the relative risk of about 18% for processed meat and 17% for red meat, quite different from the ‘absolute’ or actual threat of only 1%.

Another important consideration concerns the quantities examined by the IARC research, which are 50 grams of processed meat and 100 grams of red meat per day: consumption levels significantly higher than the average Italian ones, so the risk becomes negligible when reporting calculations to our actual consumption. According to the IARC, then, the risk factors of meat do not depend on the meat itself but are mainly due to the methods of storage, preparation, and cooking of meat and derivatives (such as those on direct flame typical of barbecue), which can result in heterocyclic aromatic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and nitrosamines, compounds that induce carcinogenic mutations.

Global Burden Disease tells us that red and processed meats are in the last place both as DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Years, that means years of life lost due to disability) and as mortality, even in developed countries. (literally, “High consumption of red meat, processed meat, trans fat, and sugar-sweetened beverages were towards the bottom in the ranking of dietary risks for deaths and DALYs for most high-population countries”).

In particular, the risk of cancer mortality from excessive consumption of processed meat is 8/100,000 globally and red meat of 5/100,000 ab; precisely, out of 20 million DALY and 0.93 million deaths attributable to cancer from food causes, processed meats + red meats weigh 3% (650,000) for DALY and 2.8% (26,400) for mortality, on cancer. If we refer to all food causes (DALY 225 million and mortality 11 million globally), the figure becomes irrelevant: 0.3% for DALY and 0.24% for mortality. These risks are so low that they are considered to be completely negligible, i.e., NON-EXISTENT.