Livestock's Long Shadow Is Not Dead

Written by: Sarah Novak   |   October 5, 2023

Sustainability

As I tell my teenagers, what you post on social media or on the internet never goes away, so be careful what you do! So is true with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations 2006 report, Livestock’s Long Shadow. No matter how many times this data has been debunked by scientists (here, here and here), the original data is still out there and being used!  

In August, I attended a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) stakeholders’ workshop about decarbonization the U.S food and beverage industry. They discussed the many challenges and opportunities, but the goal of the program was to help set the research priorities for the DOE.  

One of the general session speakers came from the Good Food Institute (GFI), and she quoted outdated data on livestock’s environmental impact from the 2006 report. GFI is a 501(c)(3) organization that is developing a road map for a “sustainable, secure and just protein supply,” but often is critical of livestock and poultry being used for food. For a U.S. government agency to support only one viewpoint on this issue was extremely disappointing.  

GFI used the FAO numbers, which not only have been proven wrong, but also reference a global number; why not use the Environmental Protection Agency’s annual data when discussing U.S. farms? GFI talked about plant-based, fermentation and cultured meat products and how they will provide the solution to feeding 10 billion people by 2050. While these products will certainly reduce food insecurity, we need all food options, including animal-based, on the table to achieve that goal.  

GFI also shared a graphic that showed how many “calories” are needed for each calorie of animal protein – without discussion on the fact that 40% of livestock and poultry feed is from co-products and by-products that are not consumed by people. Using these products is a great way to close the food cycle, as we have discussed on this blog before. 

Another concern I had with the DOE program came during one of the protein break-out sessions, when one of the speakers came from the Plant Based Food Industry Association, a group based in India (not to be confused with the U.S.-based group, the Plant Based Foods Association). Aside from Tyson Foods being on the panel, it seemed slanted toward one diet, particularly since the group’s handouts discussed the growth of plant-based foods in India.  

With a room of about 75 people, I only noticed about a dozen from actual food manufacturers. Thankfully, in my dairy break out, there were two dairy organizations that I respect and two major milk processors, the rest of the people in the room were either from DOE or university researchers.  

While I’m sure the DOE had great plans for a robust discussion and looking for research priorities for the food and beverage industry which would benefit all, I would recommend next time they include the food industry, or at least include representatives from the U.S. federal agencies that regulate our U.S. food supply!