Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health.

By A. Mcmichael, J. Powles, C. Butler, R. Uauy. The Lancet, 2007

1,231 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Food provides energy and nutrients, but its acquisition requires energy expenditure. In post-hunter-gatherer societies, extra-somatic energy has greatly expanded and intensified the catching, gathering, and production of food. Modern relations between energy, food, and health are very complex, raising serious, high-level policy challenges. Together with persistent widespread under-nutrition, over-nutrition (and sedentarism) is causing obesity and associated serious health consequences. Worldwide, agricultural activity, especially livestock production, accounts for about a fifth of total greenhouse-gas emissions, thus contributing to climate change and its adverse health consequences, including the threat to food yields in many regions. Particular policy attention should be paid to the health risks posed by the rapid worldwide growth in meat consumption, both by exacerbating climate change and by directly contributing to certain diseases. To prevent increased greenhouse-gas emissions from this production sector, both the average worldwide consumption level of animal products and the intensity of emissions from livestock production must be reduced. An international contraction and convergence strategy offers a feasible route to such a goal. The current global average meat consumption is 100 g per person per day, with about a ten-fold variation between high-consuming and low-consuming populations. 90 g per day is proposed as a working global target, shared more evenly, with not more than 50 g per day coming from red meat from ruminants (ie, cattle, sheep, goats, and other digastric grazers).

Subfields: Animal Science and Zoology, Ecology, Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7c5767bf824a070f3ade2ab07b6773cce4accb67

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Animal Science and Zoology

1. P. K. Thornton
2. I. D. de Boer
3. D. Oonincx
4. A. van Huis
5. H. Aiking
6. L. Rydhmer
7. K. Ramachandraiah

In Ecology

1. Mario Herrero
2. D. Oonincx
3. P. K. Thornton
4. Z. Bharucha
5. A. van Huis
6. S. Säll
7. Ing-Marie Gren
8. J. Pretty

In Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

1. J. Steinberger
2. Karen J. Esler
3. J. Pretty

Citations in the corpus

• Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden (2015, background): “However, McMichael et al. (2007) concluded that 22% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions come from agriculture, with 80% of those from livestock.”
• Consumer Response to Negative Information on Meat Consumption in Germany (2014, background): “Hence, it has been suggested that a diet lower in animal products is better for the climate and additionally has a less negative effect on the environment as a whole (McMichael et al. 2007).”
• Sustainable development perspectives of poultry production (2015, background): “McMichael et al. (2007) suggested an average global meat consumption of about 100 g per consumer per day.”
• Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability (2020, background): “…for the most disadvantaged people in the world, material consumption must increase to meet multiple SDGs including eradicating poverty and hunger (McMichael et al., 2007); this may also help reduce unsustainably high rates of population growth in many regions if coupled with education and…”
• The effect of using consumption taxes on foods to promote climate friendly diets – The case of Denmark (2013, background): “Hence due to the climatic impact of the dietary composition, dietary changes may lead to reductions in emissions (Aiking et al., 2006; McMichael et al., 2007).”
• Environmental Impact of the Production of Mealworms as a Protein Source for Humans – A Life Cycle Assessment (2012, background): “A suggested mitigation measure is a shift towards protein from lower impact animal species [1,4,8].”
• Specific microbiome-dependent mechanisms underlie the energy harvest efficiency of ruminants (2016, background): “These animals also emit methane —a highly potent greenhouse gas—to the atmosphere and are considered to be responsible for a considerable portion of its emission because of anthropogenic activities (McMichael et al., 2007).”
• Climate benefits of changing diet (2009, background): “Recently, a few studies have pointed out that due to the importance of livestock as regards greenhouse gas emissions, dietary changes may lead to emission reductions (Aiking et al. 2006; McMichael et al. 2007).”
• Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare (2013, background): “Many people in affluent nations consume more animal products than is nutritionally recommended [38].”
• Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security. (2013, background): “Mitigation strategies have been proposed for the meat crisis that better utilize available technologies, which could reduce non–carbon dioxide emissions from livestock production by approximately 20% if applied universally (92).”