Eat Less Meat: Ditch Meat To Double The World's Food Supply, Study Says

Meat

First Posted: 10/13/11 01:08 PM ET Updated: 12/13/11 05:12 AM ET

MONTREAL -- A newly published blueprint for doubling the global food supply includes a key suggestion about how everyone can contribute to this increasingly pressing ambition: eat less meat.

An international team of researchers has developed solutions to respond to what it calls one the greatest challenges of the 21st century -- boosting food production while slashing the environmental impact of agriculture.

The research, which will be featured on the cover page of the Oct. 20 edition of the journal Nature, comes as international concern grows over how the planet will feed the rapidly expanding human population.

With the world's population expected to climb from 6.9 billion to 9 billion by 2050, the issue of food was put at the top of this year's G-20 agenda. The study, published online Wednesday, says there are already a billion people who don't have enough to eat.

McGill University's Navin Ramankutty, one of the team leaders on the paper, said the research is the first of its kind to quantify both food production and ecological consequences in the same analysis.

He added that it's also the first study to examine these factors while considering the specific environmental characteristics of different regions of the planet.

Ramankutty estimates that simply dedicating prime cropland to growing food for humans -- rather than growing biofuels or feed for animals -- could spike the global output by nearly 50 per cent.

The study says that three-quarters of the world's agricultural land is devoted to raising livestock, either for grazing or for growing feed.

Ramankutty added that beef is the most resource-intensive animal product of them all.

"That doesn't mean we all have to become vegetarians and vegans, but even if you . . . eat meat one or two days less a week, you can hugely contribute to the amount of food that's needed."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA LIVING

MONTREAL -- A newly published blueprint for doubling the global food supply includes a key suggestion about how everyone can contribute to this increasingly pressing ambition: eat less meat. An inter...
MONTREAL -- A newly published blueprint for doubling the global food supply includes a key suggestion about how everyone can contribute to this increasingly pressing ambition: eat less meat. An inter...
Filed by Arti Patel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 46
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chuck Bluestein
Always searching for latest health breakthrough
01:05 PM on 10/28/2011
You can walk a mile or drive a mile. If you walk, the only concern is the that your body works well. Driving is much more complex. Your body needs to work well. Then your car needs to be in good condition. The body is constantly repairing itself. But the car is constantly wearing out and you need to do repairs on it. If electric then it needs to be charged to run. If not then it needs to have enough gasoline.

It is that the simpler things are, the less can go wrong. So the anology is like saying that the lower on the food chain that we eat, the simpler and more sustainable things are. If you eat animals, you still need to grow the plants to feed them in most cases. So the saying is to eat lower on the food chain. Fish in the ocean feed themselves without our help. They contain more toxins than algae since they eat a lot of algae.

Fish have omega-3s but get them from eating algae. The seaweed is loaded with iodine and other trace minerals that are low in topsoil. The Japanese eat a lot of seaweed and are the longest living people. Seaweed and algae are very sustainable since they grow like weeds. It requires much more land to get a pound of beef than to get a pound of potatoes. Is The Humble Potato The New Superfood? http://huff.to/n6878n Potatoes lower high blood pressure.
10:58 AM on 10/17/2011
If you want to feed the hungry, help to support sustainable agriculture systems. Animals are essential to every major form of sustainable agriculture. Oversimplified polemics like "meat bad, plant foods good," are part of the problem, not the solution. Nature works in complex webs of dynamic interrelationships, not oversimplified polemics, and any truly sustainable system of food production must reflect that.
10:57 AM on 10/17/2011
It is mind-boggling that top-down, linear reports based on out of context statistics, like the one cited above, do not make any effort at all to actually understand either agriculture or food security in starving countries. Their conclusion is completely asinine. There is ALREADY enough food to feed everyone on the planet, so their argument that eating less meat would mean that there would be more food for the hungry literally has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Distribution however is a real problem. The absence of sustainable, biodiverse, locally based food systems., which are the only real solution (and require animals by the way) is the heart of the problem. Simply increasing the amount of bags of grains to ship halfway around the world, as the above report advocates, does absolutely nothing to help the problem, and often makes it far, far worse, by making people dependent on foods that fall into corrupt hands and never really gets to the people who need it.

How does growing more grains for human consumption feed the poorest people on the planet? It doesn't. How does creating biodiverse, sustainable food systems adapted to local environments provide food security? By helping people to help themselves, strengthening their local economies, and helping their land do what it does best, rather than relying on corrupt distribution systems of shipping bags of industrially produced monocrop foods all over the globe.
01:43 AM on 10/24/2011
Indeed! I always felt that it would be a more prudent use of money for food charities to use donations to establish community farms in areas of hunger that could have it but don't for lack of equipment and/or knowledge. Get a farm established, and it will cost far less over time to just keep their equipment maintained. Eventually they could turn enough of a profit to supply another farm, and it begins again. Next thing you know, you just ended most of world hunger.
12:06 PM on 10/16/2011
I went vegan for ethical reasons after seeing MeatVideo.com. Just doing my part to increase global food supply, too!
05:41 PM on 10/16/2011
good for you! we need to share that information!
10:53 AM on 10/14/2011
I am by no means a farming expert, but I wonder what kind of effect it could have if we replaced these nutrient poor crops (corn, soy, wheat) with pasture and fruit & veggie crops? Corn, soy & wheat are suboptimal foods for livestock, and suboptimal foods for us humans; what if we didn't have them at all? The potential economic effects are scary but we'd all be a lot healthier for sure!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gabe Brummett
left wing/right wing - same bird.
06:35 PM on 10/14/2011
you don't have to be an expert to understand that the reason american farmers grow so much corn and soy is that it's easily stored for long amounts of time, as well as having a variety of uses.
the potential economic benefits of smaller, more diverse farms with pastured healthy happy animals and localized distribution and sales would be huge!
of course we shouldn't eat industrial meat, it's disgusting and terrible for the environment. but the idea that by not eating meat, there will somehow be more food leftover for starving people in third world countries is just as ridiculous as thinking that if you use recycled toilet paper they'll stop chopping down trees. take the power away from the 4 companies that control grain production worldwide. support your local organic small scale farmers!
08:56 AM on 11/03/2011
Love the toilet paper analogy, so true!
10:15 AM on 10/14/2011
I treat meat, fish and chicken as something to add to a meal and not the star attraction. I tend to keep my portions down to 2-3 oz like you would a vegetable etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
11:37 PM on 11/02/2011
In reality, most people actually do that.
Mochilero
Have backpack, will travel
07:20 PM on 10/13/2011
Frankie Moore Lappe said it forty years ago in Diet for a Small Planet - it takes twenty pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat, and too much water also
10:54 AM on 10/14/2011
True, but it could take zero lbs of grain to produce a pound of meat- go grassfed! ;)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
11:40 PM on 11/02/2011
Well, the 20:1 ratio is GROSSLY inaccurate, and as JuliaKohli said, pastured meat and dairy requires ZERO grain. Raising animal on pasture and range land (which is usually unsuitable for crop cultivation anyway) involves converting forage plants that are inedible by humans into meat and milk that are. Quite efficient, and better for you (and better for the environment).
05:57 PM on 10/13/2011
http://www.foodreview101.com/ Uhm I think if this worked and people ate less, not only could we save the world, but American's wouldn't be 66% overweight or obese! (sarcasm)
05:25 PM on 10/13/2011
The World Health Organization (WHO) has reported that over 1 Billion people are overweight and more than 300 million are clinically obese.
So maybe there's another way to double the world's food supply - not to mention the savings in waste sewage treatment costs.
03:31 PM on 10/13/2011
There IS nothing wrong with the world's food SUPPLY. What there is a problem with, is distribution and corporate CONTROL of DISTRIBUTING it,
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Republican = FAIL
04:30 PM on 10/13/2011
"With the world’s population expected to climb from 6.9 billion to 9 billion by 2050, the issue of food was put at the top of this year’s G-20 agenda. The study, published online Wednesday, says there are already a billion people who don’t have enough to eat."

The future will be dire unless we prepare for it beginning now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul108
03:23 PM on 10/17/2011
Yes, that's what the article is about. We have no problem growing enough food, but we're distributing it through animals to fatten them for slaughter instead of feeding it directly to people.

I know that's not what you meant, but still...

However, 20 years from now it'll be a vastly different story because the Ogallala Aquifer won't be supporting U.S. agriculture anymore.
03:28 PM on 10/13/2011
Rather than increasing food supply we should be decreasing the human population.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pjlowry
03:54 PM on 10/13/2011
And how exactly do you suggest we do that, Adolf?
04:02 PM on 10/13/2011
That appears to be your solution, not mine.
05:28 PM on 10/13/2011
1,000,000,000 (as in 1 billion) overweight people in the world don't seem to have a problem finding food.
photo
portfolio
money is the barometer of a society's virtue
02:08 PM on 10/13/2011
Because of health condition, I have nearly eliminated my consumption of animal products.
I'm feeling better than I have in ages.
More energy and my skin is glowing.
If it also helps feed more people, then that is a win win.
01:49 PM on 10/13/2011
Ridiculous. People are starving because it's expensive to transport food, not because there isn't enough food to go around. Don't try to disguise an environmental agenda as a humanitarian one.
smo1111
President Obama's still The One
02:02 PM on 10/13/2011
You either didn't read the article.......or you didn't comprehend what you read.
02:07 PM on 10/13/2011
/Sigh.. so naive
05:34 PM on 10/13/2011
Both.
photo
Jay from Ottawa
sovereignty sale, 1.3T OBO
02:08 PM on 10/13/2011
Part of the problem is transporting food across continents (an enviromental problem of it's own) when people should be eating locally grown food. Combine that with diet that includes less meat and everyone wins.

It's both enviromental and humanitarian, get over it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gx5000
Life's too short, be happy..
02:58 PM on 10/13/2011
Agreed.............. but don't even think of taking away my prime rib !