The double burden of too little consumption of milk, meat and eggs by poor people and too much consumption by richer people was highlighted at the first ever United Nation's conference on sustainable livestock transformation.
That quandary is delivering 'bended truths', not only in popular media but in the science community, that is driving policy and legislation to the detriment of environmentally-sound livestock production, the conference heard.
Indeed, scientific journal PLOS Climate has today released a paper spruiking the use of meat taxes in the European Union.
Climate researchers Linus Mattauch and Leona Tenkhoff argued the European Union's agricultural sector needs to be subject to some sort of greenhouse gas emission pricing in order to achieve climate targets.
The researchers suggested that such a move would be both politically possible and able to win public support particularly if teamed with stricter animal farming standards, or if money raised from any such taxes went towards subsidising low-income households.
The opinion piece also expressed a view that social norms needed to change to discourage meat consumption, pointing to "the lay belief that eating meat is natural whereas plant-based meals are unenjoyable."
Global challenge
The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation hosted the sustainable livestock conference in Rome in September to address the global challenge of producing more protein to feed a world whose population will have doubled by 2050, with less livestock so as to reduce environmental impact.
Director General of the International Livestock Research Institute Dr Jimmy Smith said the conference came at a time when despite the positive contributions of livestock the negatives were dominating conversations.
"We know the demand for animal-sourced foods will increase rapidly over the next few decades. By 2050 food production will have to double to feed 9.2 billion people," he said.
"We will need 2.3 times more poultry, 1.7 times more other meat and 1.5 times more milk than in 2010.
"We must meet this demand without adding more ruminants to the planet.
"We must marry technological and policy innovations to bring about highly efficient and ecologically sound livestock production; rapidly increase the productivity of livestock in developing countries; introduce climate smart breeds and feeds and reduce the endemic disease burden of livestock."
FAO offered the construct of the 'four betters' - better production, nutrition, environment and life - to guide the transformation required, Dr Smith said.
And while in rich places, over-consumption of animal-sourced foods was fueling calls for limitations on livestock production, Dr Smith said circumstances elsewhere in the world had to be recognised.
"There is no equivalence between poor choice of food and no choice of food," he said.
"Intellectuals tend to use bended truth and broad generalisations that has to do with total emissions of livestock. These falsehoods have abided and they have come to dominate the conversation."
Tackle subsidies, Australia urges
Australia shared the positive sustainability story of its livestock sector at the conference, and argued for a reduction in harmful agricultural supports and market distorting policies.
Acting Deputy Secretary for Agricultural Trade Nicola Hinder said Australia supported balanced science and evidence-based discussions on global livestock production and one that acknowledged the diversity of circumstances between countries.
There was no one-size-fits-all approach, she said.
"We genuinely believe there is a global need to reconsider approaches and re-purpose environmentally-harmful supports, such as subsidies, to greater investment in innovation, research and development," Ms Hinder said.
Between 2019 and 2021, support toward the agriculture sector from 54 major economies reached US $817 billion, a figure that was steadily increasing, she reported.
"That stifles innovation, harms efficient farmers, decreases prices and causes environmental damage including through the overuse of inputs like herbicides, fertilisers and water."
Australia had heavily invested in research to produce more with less. For every $1 invested in research and development, around $7.80 had been returned to the farmgate within ten years.
"This has enabled huge productivity gains," Ms Hinder said.
Australia's livestock sector showed it was possible to minimise the environmental footprint of the livestock sector, she said.
"Our red meat industry has reduced emissions by 65 per cent since 2005," she said.
"Our wheat and grassfed beef farms are now below the global medium for emissions intensity.
"A total of 61pc of broadacre grazing farms and 86pc of our dairy farms have implemented a form of conservation grazing and 7.6m hectares of cattle-producing country has been set aside for conservation."
