Bildtext får vara max två rader text. Hela texten ska högerjusteras om den bara ska innehålla fotobyline! Photo: B. Christensen/Azote
CLARITY, PLEASE: Attempting to eat more sustainably? You may have started buying less beef at the supermarket and opt for chicken instead. Or perhaps you go for certified options or shop directly from your local farmer. Pasture grazed? Yes please! These days there are many options available to the sustainability conscious consumer.
This notion of ‘Less but better’ is widely used by campaigners to guide Western meat consumption towards sustainability. But how much meat should we be consuming, and what is better for people and the planet?
It’s not clear, and this may be harming sustainability efforts.
In a comment in Nature, centre researchers Kajsa Resare Sahlin and Line Gordon together with Elin Röös from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), call for a more informed explanation to consumers of what exactly is ‘less’ and what is ‘better’.
The current definition lacks clarity and may push meat consumption further from sustainable practices.
Kajsa Resare Sahlin, lead author
Coming up with an appropriate amount of ‘less meat’ is a challenge as it depends on the aspect of sustainability you’re talking about.
What’s better for the climate may not be better for biodiversity, and what’s better for biodiversity may not be better for health.
This is further complicated by differences in values across the world. Making an integrated assessment considering climate, health, biodiversity, land use, animal welfare and culture is a tight balancing act.
'Better’ meat can mean many things. For some this is taste (is it tender, juicy and flavourful?).
For ohers its origin and sustainability and how production practices contribute to animal welfare and farmer livelihoods.
“Scientific characterization of ‘less but better’ is crucial for enabling more informed discussion on value-laden decisions and to build consensus on the meaning of the concept, especially as it gains traction with civil society organizations and policy makers,” conclude the authors.
Sahlin, K.R., Röös, E., Gordon, L. 2020. ‘Less but better’ meat is a sustainability message in need of clarity. Nat Food 1, 520–522 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00140-5
For more information about the publication, contact lead author Kajsa Resare Sahlin:
Research news | 2021-01-14
Approximately 100 companies account for more than one-third of high seas fishing
Research news | 2021-01-13
The 100 largest companies that operate within eight ocean industries took an estimated 60% of all revenues. The next step will be to explore their environmental footprint
Research news | 2021-01-12
For households in the Mexican town of Loreto, the chocolate clam means more than just an important source of income. It’s part of their community identity
Research news | 2020-12-29
Improved understanding of how and why people move can reduce future costs and facilitate climate adaptation both within and across borders
Research news | 2020-12-16
Unmanned vessels equipped with echo-sounder makes fish stock monitoring in the Baltic Sea cheaper, easier and kinder to the environment
Research news | 2020-12-15
Efforts by companies to implement sustainability strategies is hampered by reluctance to comply by actors in their supply chains due to complex barriers