Elsevier

Journal of Cleaner Production

Volume 266, 1 September 2020, 121785
Journal of Cleaner Production

Impact of recommended red meat consumption in Canada on the carbon footprint of Canadian livestock production

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121785Get rights and content

Abstract

The recommendation in the 2019 Canada Food Guide to diversify protein sources in the human diet could lead to less red meat consumption by Canadians. The main goal of this paper was to assess the potential impact of the reduction in red meat consumption on the carbon footprint of Canadian livestock production. Beef, pork and broilers were used to represent Canadian carcass based food commodities. Three scenarios for allowable red meat (beef and pork) consumption were tested based on medical recommendations of 15.9, 23.7 and 27.6 kg (boneless weight) per capita per year. Maintaining national dietary protein intake at 0.39 Mt was the main boundary condition for the projected reduction of red meat. A spreadsheet model was used to interpolate published Greenhouse Gas emission estimates from 1981 to 2006 for beef, pork and broiler production to 2017. This model accounted for the life cycles, age-gender categories, and supporting crop complexes of each livestock type. Three production scenarios based on two different apportionments of allowable red meat to beef and pork, and two alternative beef diets, were combined with the three medical scenarios to formulate nine projected consumption recommendations. These projections generated the slaughter animal live weights, Greenhouse Gas emissions from their production, and their protein contents. All nine scenarios required a major expansion of broiler production to satisfy the required national protein intake. The amounts by which the nine scenarios reduced Greenhouse Gas emissions ranged from 0% to 31% of the 32.6 Mt of total national CO2e emissions for the production of these three commodities in 2017.

Introduction

In 2019 the Government of Canada (2019) republished the Canada Food Guide for the first time since 2007. National food guides have a long history of promoting the nutritional health of Canadians. Inspired by rationing in the Second World War, Canada published the first food guide in 1942. After rationing for the war effort was no longer required, the federal government continued to publish the food guide every few years. All previous versions of the guide had categorized foods into a few nutritional groups such as milk, fruits, vegetables, bread and cereals, and meat and fish. They also recommended healthy portions from specific foods in those groups, whereas the 2019 version of the food guide moved away from serving portions in favour of the image of the complete dinner plate (Shakeri, 2019). By highlighting the nutritional benefits of diverse protein sources like nuts, beans, legumes, pulses and tofu, along with meat, eggs, and dairy products, the new Canada Food Guide could cause a much larger share of Canada’s protein intake to come from non-animal sources (Kramer, 2019).

Environmental impacts of food systems are affected by dietary choices (Heller and Keoleian. 2015). The human diet, land use and climate change are all connected (Gerretsen, 2019; Weston, 2019). There is growing public awareness that the climate impact of animal agriculture has been underestimated (McMahon, 2019) and that meat production is one of the main sources of greenhouse gases (Mayer, 2019). Public pressure for developed nations to dramatically reduce their intake of red meat is mounting (Abedi, 2018). The EAT-Lancet Commission (2019) called for a 50% reduction in red meat by 2050. Three fast food chains, McDonald’s, KFC and Burger King, have been urged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their supply chains (The Guardian, 2019). Plant-based meat products known as Beyond Meat are a reflection of this growing awareness (Kramer, 2019). While numerous literature sources call for livestock industries to set clear yet ambitious Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction targets, they provide little guidance on achieving these targets without compromising the protein component of the human diet.

The earlier food guides took no account of the environmental impacts of the prescribed diets (Yegna, 2017). The 2019 Canada Food Guide makes reference to the environmental impacts of food choices (Government of Canada, 2019), but only in general, non-quantitative terms. By encouraging consumers to diversify their diets towards plant products, including beans, nuts and pulses to meet their protein needs (Flanagan, 2019), the 2019 Canada Food Guide appears to have at least recognized this new awareness (Mayer, 2019). However, because the 2019 food guide did not put forward serving portions as precisely as was done in previous versions (Shakeri, 2019), it could only talk in terms of ‘less of’, when referring to animal products.

The goal of this paper was to assess the potential change in the carbon footprint of Canadian livestock production resulting from meat consumption recommendations in the 2019 Canada Food Guide. Since this assessment does not depend on the validity of these recommendations, whether red meat is a healthy food choice was beyond the scope of this assessment. If, as Mayer (2019) suggests, more Canadians are looking for meat alternatives, this goal will clarify the significance of this potential dietary change to the carbon footprint of Canadian livestock production. Towards that goal, the paper will quantify the changes of both consumption and production of three major animal carcass products, beef, pork and broilers, and the potential changes in the GHG emission budget of these products by the suggested move away from red meat. Because of the vagueness of the recommendations for red meat consumption in the 2019 food guide, medical recommendations for red meat will be used as a proxy for the quantitative guidelines not provided by the 2019 Canada Food Guide.

Section snippets

Canadian red meat consumption

Both medical concerns and the GHG mitigation imperative are potential incentives to reduce red meat consumption. In the last 15 years the public media has increasingly focussed on the health impacts of too much red meat consumption. The chances of dying from cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, stroke, diabetes, infections, kidney disease, or liver disease have all reportedly increased with the increase in red meat consumption (Kmietowicz, 2017). As well as cancer mortality, red meat is

Methodology

To assess the impact of medical recommendations for RM consumption on the carbon footprint of Canadian livestock industries, the analysis considered the three main carcass-producing livestock types: beef, pork and broilers. Dairy was eliminated both because it is not a carcass product and, for the foreseeable future, the Canadian dairy industry will continue to be mainly supply-managed, thus reducing the likelihood of major changes to that supply chain. Veal was not included in this RM

Relating consumption to production

Table 3 shows the national LW from the production and consumption of beef, pork and broilers in 2017 and resulting from the array of scenarios described in Sections 3.3 Recommended red meat consumption, 3.7 Livestock production scenarios. Only the actual 2017 production of LW is shown in units of weight in Table 3.

The actual reported consumption and the projected consumption under the nine scenario combinations are shown as percentages of Canadian production. While the GHG-LW emission

Scenario analysis GHG implications

Table 3 suggests that Canadian RM consumption is already close to satisfying the two most lenient medical recommendations for RM shown in Fig. 1 (Douillard, 2013; Mandal, 2011). Whereas the Lenient RM consumption rate will likely not achieve a meaningful GHG reduction from the livestock industry, the Restricted scenario could lower these GHG emissions by 31% below current production (Fig. 4), depending on how beef producers respond. For example, continuing to feed cattle a high grain diet

Conclusions

This paper showed the potential impact of the recommendation of the 2019 Canada Food Guide to diversify protein sources on Canadian livestock production. It also quantified the potential impact on GHG emissions of diversifying Canadian livestock production. This analysis framed the Canadian livestock industry within two boundary conditions (as illustrated in Fig. 1), medical RM recommendations and required NPI, and considered potential shifts in the production and domestic consumption of three

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

Funding provided by: Sustainability Metrics Project, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada.

References (68)

  • M. Abedi

    Skip the Steak? Curb Meat Consumption to Combat Climate Change: Study

    (2018)
  • K. Arnold

    How Old Must a Pig Be for Slaughter?

    (2018)
  • K.A. Beauchemin et al.

    Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed barley or corn diets

    J. Anim. Sci.

    (2005)
  • M. Boehm et al.

    Sink potential of Canadian agricultural soils

    Climatic Change

    (2004)
  • Canadian Cancer Society

    Why You Should Limit Red Meat and Avoid Processed Meat

    (2019)
  • E. Chung

    Your meals are speeding up climate change, but there’s a way to eat sustainably

    CBC News, Technol. Sci.

    (2018)
  • R. Cook

    World Beef Consumption Per Capita (Ranking of Countries)

    (2019)
  • CPI

    The Canadian pork story. Canada pork international (CPI)

  • R.L. Desjardins et al.

    Agricultural greenhouse gases

  • J. Douillard

    7 Reasons to Reduce Red Meat. Nutrition Action Health Letter

    (2013)
  • B. Duckworth

    Beef Consumption up Slightly in Canada for Second Year. The Western Producer, June 21, 2018

    (2018)
  • J.A. Dyer et al.

    A review and evaluation of fossil energy and carbon dioxide emissions in Canadian agriculture

    J. Sustain. Agric.

    (2009)
  • J.A. Dyer et al.

    The role of Canadian agriculture in meeting increased global protein demand with low carbon emitting production

    Agronomy

    (2015)
  • J.A. Dyer et al.

    The protein-based GHG emission intensity for livestock products in Canada

    J. Sustain. Agric.

    (2010)
  • J.A. Dyer et al.

    Areas and greenhouse gas emissions from feed crops not used in Canadian livestock production in 2001

    J. Sustain. Agric.

    (2011)
  • J.A. Dyer et al.

    Implications of biofuel feedstock crops for the livestock feed industry in Canada

  • J.A. Dyer et al.

    An environmental impact assessment of biofuel feedstock production on agro-ecosystem biodiversity in Canada

  • J.A. Dyer et al.

    A comparison of the greenhouse gas emissions from the sheep industry with beef production in Canada

    Sustain. Agric. Res.

    (2014)
  • J.A. Dyer et al.

    Assessment of the carbon and non-carbon footprint interactions of livestock production in Eastern and Western Canada

    Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst.

    (2014)
  • J.A. Dyer et al.

    An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from co-grazing sheep and beef in Western Canadian rangeland

  • J.A. Dyer et al.

    District scale GHG emission indicators for Canadian field crop and livestock production

    Agronomy

    (2018)
  • EAT-Lancet Commission

    Summary Report of the EAT-Lancet Commission. Can we feed a future population of 10 billion people a healthy diet within planetary boundaries? The EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health

  • M. Elward et al.

    Livestock Feed Requirements Study 1999–2001. Catalogue No. 23-501-XIE

    (2003)
  • R. Flanagan

    What’s on your plate? Inside the changes to Canada’s Food Guide

    (2019)
  • Cited by (19)

    • The influence of meat consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in Argentina

      2023, Resources, Conservation and Recycling Advances
    • The neglected potential of red and processed meat replacement with alternative protein sources: Simulation modelling and systematic review

      2023, eClinicalMedicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Our modelling may be compared with some of these studies with caution given differences in source data, in the modelling processes, in the replacement scenarios, and the outcomes considered. The greenhouse gas emission reductions we observed were comparable in magnitude (19–34%) with four other publications on red and processed meat intake reduction in Italy,28 Canada,29 USA,30 and across Denmark, Czech Republic, Italy, and France.31 Our use of data from a country with entirely grass-fed beef production is a further point of novelty and provides a ‘best case’ scenario, with current cattle rearing greenhouse gas emissions appearing lower than the global median (21 kgCO2-eq/kg of beef vs median 27 kgCO2-eq/kg and 17 kgCO2-eq/kg of lamb13 vs median 26 kgCO2-eq/kg32).

    • Enteric methane emission factors, total emissions and intensities from Germany's livestock in the late 19th century: A comparison with the today's emission rates and intensities

      2022, Science of the Total Environment
      Citation Excerpt :

      These data underline that Germany's further CH4 mitigation potential lies in reducing beef consumption to further reduce beef import, and that the resulting protein gap could be closed by consuming milk products possessing a lower CH4 emission intensity than beef. Dyer et al. (2020) suggested for Canada a reduction in beef production and instead an expansion of broiler production to satisfy the required national protein intake; however, the annual consumption of meat from poultry in Germany has already increased from <2 kg in the 19th century to >22 kg per person in 2020 (Hoffmann, 1965; Statista, 2021), and, unlike beef consumption, exacerbates feed-food competition (Windisch, 2021). The human population in Germany's current territory increased from 34 Mio in 1883 to 83 Mio in 2020.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text