Almost a year has passed since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a popular tweet recommending that individuals lessen their red meat intake following backlash from Irish agricultural groups. The Director General of the EPA, Laura Burke, stated at the time that summing up such an intricate discussion in a single tweet would undermine the gravity of the discourse needed, most likely concerning land usage, diet and climate change.
The problem at hand is undoubtedly intricate. It’s an immense challenge to enhance the nutritional health of a projected global population of 10 billion by 2050, whilst minimising environmental and climate impacts. This requires utilisation of every scientific, cultural and behavioural tool at our disposal, as well as a political shift that redefines the state’s role in backing a food manufacturing model that remains affordable and focuses on health and environmental sustainability.
Regrettably, our food decisions are not always particularly wise, a situation exacerbated by the plethora of inexpensive, highly processed foods available. Existing on a diet of chips and pizza might be less detrimental to the environment, but it doesn’t foster healthiness. Avocados, for instance, have a significant impact due to the lengthy travel distance linked to their ripening and transport from tropical regions. Some animal products are essential for ingestible nutrients that are challenging to replace. The issue of food waste also looms large, with over a third of the food created for humans ending up in the bin.
Despite this, the simple yet indisputable advice that a sustainable diet within the Global North necessitates a reduction in red meat consumption to approximately 98g per week, as per the EAT-Lancet commission’s suggestion (although other specialists recommend more), has not been endorsed by any Irish state agency. Neither the EPA, the Department of Health, the Department of Agriculture and Food, SafeFood, Bord Bia, nor Teagasc have done so.
The Oireachtas hasn’t had any discussions on sustainable diets since the scandal involving the EPA’s tweet. Last November, TD Paul Murphy questioned the Agriculture Minister about why his department couldn’t endorse plant-based diets concurrently with meat and dairy. The Minister sidestepped the concern by simply praising Irish farmers’ food as being “exceptionally nutritious”.
Approximately 40% of the world’s land area is dominated by agriculture, and it contributes to 19-37% of the global greenhouse emissions. In order to limit global warming below 2 degrees and meet the global food demands, significant changes in our food systems are necessary. In particular, the substantial emission contributions from the meat and dairy industry, which only provide 13% of worldwide calorie intake and about 30% of protein, need to be moderated. Despite providing a minor portion of global nutrition, meat and dairy account for close to 85% of food production-related greenhouse gas emissions and have a major environmental impact.
Eating locally produced meat and dairy doesn’t necessarily translate to a “sustainable” diet. The average adult diet in Ireland was projected in 2023 to exceed the carbon dioxide planetary boundary by 226%. Alongside environmental degradation, we’re seeing soaring rates of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and diet-related cancers. It’s clear that advocating for a sustainable diet would be beneficial for both people’s health and the planet.
However, it appears our leaders lack the courage to suggest policies fostering alternative food options, perhaps for fear of sparking outrage like that observed following the then taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s quiet disclosure in 2019 that he had reduced his red meat intake for health benefits. It seems the most effective way to win such arguments is by completely silencing the debate.
The primary players in this subdued debate, particularly the meat industry, are cautious to stay under the radar, with the latter receiving criticism for downplaying the climatic effects of meat production. The Dublin Declaration, supportive of the livestock sector’s social and economic contribution and dismissive of calls to lower meat consumption, has received approval from entities such as Teagasc. In other scenarios, this would be considered regulatory capture.
The words of Tirlan’s outgoing CEO Jim Bergin this May alluded to the influence the dairy industry can have in times when farmers are increasingly pressured, by stating that “we should never contemplate giving up one animal of our dairy herd”. However, the long-term outcome of such pressure exerted by the meat and dairy industry results in a narrowing public space to discuss food systems and animal welfare.
Shouldn’t we begin the dialogue about enduring food structures now, and encourage our public health institutions to robustly endorse sustainable eating habits? Sadhbh O’Neill, an independent researcher specialising in climate and environment, posits this point.