A Meaty Mess - On How to Reduce Europe's Meat Consumption

Meat is yummy. We cannot deny it. Living in Liverpool for a couple of weeks, we have found it hard to resist the British ‘delicacies’ gleaming at you in the shelves of Tesco or Sainsbury’s. Bacon, Cumberland sausages, burgers – you name it, we’ve probably eaten and loved it (with the exception of black pudding, which Harald loves, but which Alex finds disgusting). Nevertheless, at the same time we have attempted to reduce our meat consumption significantly over the past couple of years. Rather than eating meat every day, we try to limit ourselves to smaller quantities, once or twice a week, although we do occasionally give in to the local kebab shop. You could make this decision for a number of reasons: the horsemeat scandal that is currently reminding Europe of the way the meat industry works; the strong correlation between intestinal cancer and meat consumption; or the vast amounts of resources consumed for the production of meat. Each one of these reasons is probably sufficient to either reduce one’s consumption of industrially-produced meat, or to stop eating meat altogether. For us the most important reason is the abominable treatment of animals. Rather than shocking you with statistics and images right here, we will attach some graphs at the end of this post.

Not all cows are as happy as this one.

Europeans must drastically reduce their meat consumption. This is a moral responsibility. Halving out meat consumption of currently 82kg per year will cause a drastic reduction in carbon emissions, a significant improvement in cancer risk and thus life expectancy and it will hopefully cause the meat industry to overthink its ways of treating animals. What we disagree about is how this can be achieved. For that reason, rather than offering a single solution, we will present three possible responses: 1. to introduce a meat tax; 2. to increase the regulation of the meat industry; 3. to raise public awareness causing metanoia.

The first method of getting people to reduce their meat consumption works via the price mechanism: if you increase the price of a product, less people will buy it. Seems logical, right? After all it worked with cigarettes. What you could do is to introduce a meat tax on all products containing meat, either processed or fresh. A meat tax of 100% would double the meat prices, and demand would plummet. People would still buy meat, but in smaller quantities, and not out of principle, but because it is too expensive. The revenue from this tax could be used to modestly subsidize organic meat, making it only marginally more expensive than non-organic meat. It is likely that demand for organic meat will skyrocket, which will again drive up the prices, requiring further subsidies. In the long run, you could achieve that people will eat more organic meat, which the overall meat consumption decreases. However, there is of course a downside to all of this. The cattle farmers themselves have been struggling for years with a trend that is driving prices down, and sudden reduction in meat consumption would inevitably cause thousands of cattle farms to close down. Perhaps this is inevitable if Europe is to reduce its meat consumption. Nevertheless, some time should be allowed for farmers to transition to the new food economy.

The second method that we have discussed in some detail is heavier regulation of the meat industry. A meat tax would do little to improve the living conditions of the animals involved. One could thus enforce a limitation to farm sizes, allowing for example only 150 cows, 500 sheep, 300 pigs or 1000 chickens per farm. A modest meat tax could be introduced (5%?), allowing subsidies to flow into the transition to the new farming system. One could enforce that all animals have to be kept outside for at least 6 hours per day, and that they have to have a sufficient amount of space, that is far greater than what is currently allocated to them. The organic model could be adopted on all farms within ten years. Again, meat prices would vastly increase as a result, but revenues from the meat tax could be used to ensure farmers’ survival. The mechanism causing a reduction in meat consumption is the same as in the first case, as prices would go up. However, the public debate resulting from these regulations would also increase public awareness, allowing for more responsible eating habits.

Finally, it could be argued that the planned approaches mentioned so far would inevitably fail due to resistance from the European meat industry, which is able to exert huge amounts of influence on governmental institutions such as the European Commission. School curricula could for example be adopted to educate pupils about the life of a cow or a chicken. Those citizens who want to get involved could launch public awareness campaigns about healthy eating and the living conditions of animals. The intention would not be to turn everyone into vegetarians, but to get them to think about where they purchase their meat. It is a thousand times better to get meat from a local butcher than from the supermarket, be it Tesco, Kaufland, Carrefour or Delhaize. What is certain is that this process would take a while to be implemented, and until a true change of mind takes place. Despite one meat scandal after the other, meat consumption in Europe remains high, or even goes up.

It’s up to you to decide now which method you favour. They each have their pros and cons, and perhaps a combination of all three would get the job done best. Next time you buy meat, which might be today, think about where your meat comes from, and if possible, try to buy from your local butcher.

Alexandra Athanasopoulou & Harald Köpping

PS: Here are the graphs we promised!

More Diversity on my Plate! – A Critique of EU’s Food Production Policy Part 1: Crops!

I love food! I believe in the healing properties of chocolate, chicken soup and my mum’s stuffed tomatoes! Food is one of those rare things that are both a necessity and a pleasure. But how is our food produced? Where does it come from? This will be the subject of a mini-series about the EU and our food!  This first entry will be dedicated to crops and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). 

The CAP has been one of the EU’s major integration policies, one that almost the entirety of its budget is spent on, and it is a policy that reflected the fears of European post-WWII societies. During the war, people were starving and this could never happen again! Europe had to be completely independent when it came to food. Boost production as highly as possible, and make agriculture as efficient as possible – that makes sense, yes, if we lived in the 1960s! Today most of our problems come from the loss of biodiversity in our plates, overproduction, and wastage. The outcome of CAP is that it became more efficient to maintain huge monocultures, managed by massive agricultural companies rather than by individual farmers. Last year, while travelling through the Balkans, I was very impressed by the agricultural landscape of Bosnia and Croatia. There were hundreds of small field belonging to individual farmers, and after talking with fellow train passengers I realised that once Croatia will join the EU all this will be lost. It will become too difficult to compete with the agroindustry that farmers will be forced to sell or rent out their land. These companies will then plant the same varieties of wheat that are grown in the other Member States. While there are more than one hundred varieties of wheat we are producing only hand full. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, we have lost 75% of our agricultural biodiversity during the last century. That tastes a bit fade! Using only on type of crop might be more money-efficient but is quite dangerous because it makes production more vulnerable to diseases, fungi and other pests. The solution provided but agricultural companies is to introduce GMOs, which are apparently the future, because such “crops are more resistant to disease and insects”. That is the lie the agricultural giants want to sell us, because the cheaper solution would be to cultivate more varieties of one crop, which of course is not as fancy as GMOs and makes companies like Monsato and Bayer lose money. 

This principle applies to all our crops. Have you ever tried to boil zucchinis, you know, these huge dark green zucchinis you find in supermarket? Don’t! It will taste of nothing. When I was a kid I remember very clearly that we used to eat boiled zucchinis. They tasted amazing with lemon and Greek olive oil. Well, the zucchinis you find in the supermarkets are not the best zucchinis. They just look nice and mostly contain water, so it is better for you to fry them (you remove their extra water) than to boil them (you add extra water). The zucchinis from my childhood however are amazingly delicious if you boil them, so don’t be fooled by their colour or their size! Unfortunately, in today’s world of appearances the outside counts more than the inside, which also holds true for our crops. 

These practices have not only led to a loss of diversity in our plates but also to a loss of biodiversity in our fauna. Statistics have shown that in Western European countries where CAP has long been implemented, the number of farmland birds has decreased from 600million in 1980 to a mere 300million in 2009.  Moreover, when a new country enters the EU, decline in farmland birds mirrors the decline rates in the old Member States. This means that once you implement the CAP you lose biodiversity! Despite the EU’s pledge to protect the diversity of Europe’s flora and fauna, its practices lead to a loss in biodiversity, and it is not wonder that its supposed goals are not met! The Natura 2000 network is pretty, but sometimes you don’t need to create new programmes; you just need to adjust current policies. 

More than forty years of food abundance have changed our practices when it comes to food. We waste food! The CAP has significantly decreased food prices, which allows us to consume more, but which has also caused us not to care about the food we waste. We buy more than we need so we end up throwing away food. Our food tastes the same, because we don’t have enough variety. Food variety becomes a luxury promoted by chefs with three Michelin stars! What is the solution?  

There are many levels of solutions. At the European level you should completely reform CAP. I am not saying that CAP should not exist, but instead of giving subsidies to the transnational agricultural conglomerates, it should give subsidies to small farms. Industries make enough profits, and here I would like to stress the fact that many of the small farmers left are struggling to survive! At the individual level, we should take a bit more time when we go grocery shopping. If you can, don’t go to the supermarket, but go to the local market or find a small farm near your home. Ask about the products, ask them to offer a variety of zucchinis or tomatoes. Things are of course not that easy. As access to the European Commission and the European Parliament is easier for big industries than for individuals, things will need some time to change. But if we are more aware of what we eat, we might be off to a good start.

Alexandra Athanasopoulou

PS: You can support us by liking our facebook page.