Blanket claims cloud conversation on meat taxes: Cattlemen’s Association

There has been a lot of rhetoric in the media recently about meat taxes with the inference that eating less meat will reduce ones’ carbon footprint. Unfortunately, balance and context are often absent from this complex discussion, particularly around the Canadian agricultural environment, which is unique in the world. For example, cattle grazing supports the health of natural grasslands, which also provide wildlife habitat, biodiversity conservation, water filtration, and soil carbon storage. Not having a balanced discussion about both benefits and impacts is a disservice to all Canadians. In a recent opinion piece by Anna Pippus in The Hill Times, blanket claims once again cloud the issue. For example, I would absolutely agree that the over-consumption of any one food is not ideal, as a balanced diet that provides people with the best nutrients to live a healthy life is what is most important. Over-consuming any food will create a nutrient imbalance. However, the author is absolutely misleading in her claim that diets too high in animal foods lead to obesity and diabetes. It is interesting to note that although incidents of obesity have doubled, and diabetes tripled in the last 30 years, red meat consumption in Canada has dropped by 24 per cent per capita during the same timeframe. When the implication or outright statement is to “eat less meat,” several questions should be asked. How much less? How much are people currently eating? Is it too much or too little? If they eat less meat, with what are they substituting the meat? What are the nutritional consequences of that? Again, context is important. The beef industry in Canada advocates for a balanced diet, where animal foods can complement fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and other whole foods as part of a healthy lifestyle. Where it may be appropriate to recommend eating less to some people, it may also be appropriate to eat more animal protein, especially if the group in question is lacking in essential nutrients like protein, iron, vitamin B12, zinc, and magnesium. Many plant-based food sources do not have the same density of nutrients per serving as beef, nor are those nutrients as easily digestible by the human body. To provide some context, current per capita consumption of all meat in Canada is approximately 120g of meat per day, of which 68g is red meat and 35 g is beef only. The Canada Food Guide recommends two to three servings of meat and alternatives per day, or 150-225g per day. It seems we may not be over-consuming meat in Canada after all. It is important to note that although cattle produce large amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) as part of their digestive process, we must consider the overall environmental benefits that raising cattle for beef can provide. For example, land in Canada used for raising cattle currently stores up to 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon (crsb.ca). in addition, only 26 per cent of our native rangelands remain intact in Canada, and further preservation of these grasslands is only possible if we use grazing animals to maintain their health. Those grasslands are particularly important areas for Canada’s migratory birds, species at risk, and other wildlife. Simply judging the merits of beef on GHG emissions is dangerous, and reducing consumption of beef simply to mitigate GHG emissions could have more detrimental effects to the environment and human health than many realize. It is true that a UN report states that livestock is responsible for 14.5 per cent of global GHG emissions. However, GHG emissions from cattle in Canada account for only 2.4 per cent of total GHGs—well below that of transportation (28 per cent). Cattle in Canada produce about 11.4 kg CO2e/ kg of live cow weight, which is one of the lowest in the world for cattle production. Reducing consumption of beef in Canada will have a minimal if any impact to our country’s overall GHG emissions. Ms. Pippus points out in her article that the federal government has invested in the Canadian Beef Centre of Excellence, which is true. It is also true that one of the goals of the Centre is to add value and increase the market for beef. What she doesn’t mention is that the Centre is also used to develop new and safe cooking methods, educate consumers on beef cooking and nutrition, and helps us better use the beef so it is not wasted. Reducing food waste, by the way, will have much greater impact to reducing GHGs than simply reducing meat consumption. Lastly, Ms Pippus also fails to mention the extraordinary investments by both the beef industry and the government into research and innovations that help us reduce the environmental impacts, including GHGs, of the beef industry. These investments have allowed our industry to reduce our impacts already, and will arguably show greater benefit than a meat tax. Further, the farmers and ranchers that raise cattle continue to maintain and improve their land, feed and water resources to minimize environmental impacts and maintain a healthy and sustainable ecosystem. Most cattle in Canada are raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production and fed grasses and forages that are not suitable for human consumption. In addition, many grains that are fed to cattle have been discarded from human consumption, which allows those feedstuffs to be recycled and not wasted. Not eating beef to lower GHG emissions is not that simple. If we were to remove cattle from the natural landscape, we would need to replace the nutrients provided by beef with another equivalent food source. Likely this would need to come from increased farming in native and perennial rangelands, which would result in very large losses of stored organic carbon in the soil (up to 50 per cent of stored carbon) and significant losses in wildlife habitat and biodiversity. This loss could outweigh any perceived gains in GHG reductions. We have a great opportunity in Canada to grow a variety of different foods to optimize the use of different soils, landscapes, and environments. Livestock and crops don’t have to be exclusive, but can complement each other for better overall environmental and nutritional outcomes. Cattle do produce GHGs, and cattle producers work very hard to minimize them through animal nutrition, genetics, and environmental health research, while ensuring current rangelands and water bodies are healthy which benefits all Canadians. It doesn’t make sense to tax a food, especially in Canada, that is highly nutritious and where the intended environmental benefits may be minimal or even non-existent. Tom Lynch-Staunton is the manager of public and stakeholder engagement with the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, which represents Canada’s 68,500 beef farms and feedlots. The Hill Times