MEAT ATLAS
Facts and figures about the animals we eat

IMPRINT/IMPRESSUM
The MEAT ATLAS is jointly published by the
Heinrich Böll Foundation, Berlin, Germany, andFriends of the Earth Europe, Brussels, Belgium
Executive editors:
Christine Chemnitz, Heinrich Böll Foundation
Stanka Becheva, Friends of the Earth Europe
Managing editor: Dietmar Bartz
Art director: Ellen Stockmar
English editor: Paul Mundy
Copy editor: Elisabeth Schmidt-Landenberger
Proofreader: Maria Lanman
Research editors: Bernd Cornely, Stefan Mahlke
Contributors: Michael Álvarez Kalverkamp, Wolfgang Bayer, Stanka Becheva,
Reinhild Benning, Stephan Börnecke, Christine Chemnitz, Karen Hansen-Kuhn,
Patrick Holden, Ursula Hudson, Annette Jensen, Evelyn Mathias,
Heike Moldenhauer, Carlo Petrini, Tobias Reichert, Marcel Sebastian, Shefali Sharma,
Ruth Shave, Ann Waters-Bayer, Kathy Jo Wetter, Sascha Zastiral
Editorial responsibility (V. i. S. d. P.): Annette Maennel, Heinrich Böll Foundation
This publication is written in International English. First Edition, January 2014

Production manager:
Elke Paul, Heinrich Böll Foundation
Printed by möller druck, Ahrensfelde, Germany
Climate-neutral printing on 100 percent recycled paper.

Except for the copyrighted work indicated on pp.64–65, this material is licensed
under Creative Commons “Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported“ (CC BY-SA 3.0). For the
licence agreement, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode,
and a summary (not a substitute) at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en.

This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of theDevelopment Fields project, funded by the European Commission. The contents ofthis report are the sole responsibility of Friends of the Earth Europe and theHeinrich Boell Foundation and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting
the position of the European Commission.

FOR ORDERS AND DOWNLOAD
Heinrich Böll Foundation, Schumannstr. 8, 10117 Berlin, Germany, www.boell.de/fleischatlas
Friends of the Earth Europe, www.foeeurope.org/meat-atlas

MEAT ATLAS
Facts and figures about the animals we eat

2014TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 IMPRINT
6 INTRODUCTION
8 LESSONS TO LEARN
10 THE RISE OF THE GLOBAL MARKETThe developed world has fewer and fewer
farmers, but they are keeping more
and more animals. Instead of producing
for the local market, they supply
distant supermarkets. This same shift is
now transforming livestock
production in the developing world.

12 CONCENTRATION: ECONOMIESOF SCALE BUT LESS DIVERSITY
Economic imperatives are the driving
force behind the consolidation of the global
meat industry. This may mean more
efficient production, but it also concentrates
market power in the hands of just a few,
much to the detriment of smallholders. And
it may be risky for consumers, too.

14 MAKING PRODUCTS FROM ANIMALS:
THE SLAUGHTER INDUSTRY
To get from steer to steak, the steer has to die.
Today, slaughtering is highly industrialized.
Abattoirs are production lines with semiskilled workers toiling in poor conditions. The
industry has moved out of cities, hidden fromview. Animal-rights groups are questioning
the ethics of the slaughter industry.

16 BRIGHT PINK IN THE COLD CABINET
It’s goodbye to the neighbourhood
butcher and hello to supermarket chains. The
shift to Big Retail is now washing overdeveloping countries. The demands of therising middle classes are setting the agenda.

18 FREE TRADE VERSUS SAFE FOOD
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership agreement currently
being negotiated between the United States
and the European Union promises toboost trade and jobs. But it may also weaken
existing consumer-protection laws
on both sides of the Atlantic.

20 THE HIDDEN COSTS OF STEAK
The price tag on a package of meat does notreflect the true cost of producing thecontents: the hidden costs to the environment
and the taxpayer are much higher. If
these costs are included, livestock raisingwould probably make a net loss.

4

22 WHY FARMS KILL FISH:
BIODIVERSITY LOSS ON LAND
AND IN WATER
Overfertilization harms plants andanimals and damages ecosystems worldwide.
Nitrates in groundwater can cause
cancer. In coastal waters, they can result inoxygen-starved “dead zones”.

24 A SPECIES-POOR PLANET
The genetic basis of livestock is getting evernarrower. We are relying on a few,
specialized breeds of animals, such as theblack-and-white Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle
that are raised in over 130 countries. A few
high-yielding strains also dominate theproduction of chickens, goats, pigs and sheep.

26 ANTIBIOTICS: BREEDING SUPERBUGS
Industrial producers use large amountsof pharmaceuticals to prevent diseases fromspreading like wildfire among animals
on huge factory farms, and to promote faster
growth. But this is dangerous: bacteria
are developing resistance to drugs that arevital to treat diseases in humans.

28 WHEN THE TANK IS RUNNING DRY
The growth of the world’s livestock industry
will worsen the overuse of rivers andlakes. It’s not that animals are particularly
thirsty; but a lot of water is needed
to grow the fodder they eat, and dung fromfactory farms pollutes the groundwaterwith nitrates and antibiotic residues.

30 THE GRAIN IN THE FEED TROUGH
Ruminants and people do not have tocompete over food. But producing more meatrequires ever more grain to feed to animals
as concentrates. If we cannot grow enough at
home, we have to import it from abroad.

32 THE EMERGENCE OF A LATIN
AMERICAN SOY EMPIRE
In Argentina, the world boom in soy prices
has given rise to a new breed of farmers,
along with a huge increase in tax revenues
for the government. The structuralchanges in farming have led to serious socialand ecological effects.

34 THE CLIMATE COST OF CATTLE
Livestock directly or indirectly produce nearly
one-third of the world’s greenhouse gas
emissions. But farmers and scientists say thatwith the right type of management, livestock
do not have to be a burden on the climate.
MEAT ATLAS

36 RANCHERS IN THE RAINFOREST
In Brazil’s Amazon region, the world’s
second-largest herd of cattle meets theworld’s biggest rainforest. This is bad news
for the forest. First come the loggers,then come the ranchers.

38 THE GLYPHOSATE IN YOUR BURGER
If pesticides, herbicides or medicines leave
unwanted residues in meat, milk andeggs, we end up consuming them too. Gaps
in research leave uncertainty about
what glyphosate – a weedkiller used whengrowing genetically modified soybeans –does to our bodies. Legal loopholes mean we
may be eating it without knowing it.

40 A PLETHORA OF POULTRY: CHICKENSTAKE THE LEAD
In developed countries, consumptionof chicken is surpassing that of beef,
and chicken production is now
highly industrialized. Demand in Asia isrising fast, and people who refuse
pork and beef are happy to eat chicken.

42 WHERE KEEPING CHICKENSIS WOMEN’S WORK
Many women in Africa and Asia are forced
to be dependent on their husbands for big
decisions. A few hens, chicks and eggs canbuild their confidence and self-reliance.
Their contribution to the meat supply is often
underestimated.

44 IMPORTED CHICKEN WINGS DESTROY
WEST AFRICAN BUSINESSES
European poultry firms are not permitted
to turn slaughter by-products into animal
feed. So they export them to developing
countries and sell them cheap. Broiler farms
in Ghana and Benin have gone bankrupt.

46 DISQUIET IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD
Demand for meat in the developed world
has peaked, and is beginning to decline
slowly. Consumers’ worries about food safety
are reinforced by scandals in theindustry. The industry is trying to improve
its image with marketing ploys, but
consumers are confused and the product is
not necessarily any better.

48 HALF A BILLION NEW MIDDLECLASS CONSUMERS FROM RIO TO
SHANGHAI
Brazil, Russia, India, China and South
Africa – the BRICS – are five big developing
countries that are setting out fromdifferent starting points. They may notend up with the food consumption patternsof the industrialized West.
MEAT ATLAS

50 URBAN LIVESTOCK KEEPING
For many, urban livestock is acontradiction in terms. Isn’t livestock-raising
a rural activity, and don’t cities ban
livestock because of the smell, noise andpollution? Yet urban livestock are
crucial for the livelihoods of many poor citydwellers. And they provide nutritious
food at lower prices than their country cousins.

52 TURNING SCRUB INTO PROTEIN
Much of the world’s livestock, and much of its
meat, milk and eggs, are raised by
non-industrial producers. Many of them
manage their animals on land that is
unsuited for crops, optimizing the use of
local resources. But the existence of
these producers is under increasing threat.

54 IN SEARCH OF GOOD FOOD
Concerned consumers in the rich world facea dilemma. They want good-quality meatthat is produced in an environmentallyfriendly, ethical manner. How best to ensure
this? Here we look at some alternatives.

56 VEGETARIANISM: MANY ROOTS,MANY SHOOTS
Only a small percentage of the populationin the industrialized world describe
themselves as vegetarians or vegans. Suchlifestyles are more common in partsof the world where religions play a major
role. In most faiths, followers are
expected to abstain from meat in one way
or another.

58 WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT:
INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS
Given all the problems with livestock
production and meat consumption,is there anything that normal people cando? Yes: individuals can makechoices about their consumption patterns,
and groups can push for change.

26 topics
and 80 graphics
on how we produce
and cosume
meat

60 A GREENER POLICY FOR EUROPE
The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
has for decades supported, and distorted,
farm production. It has evolved fromsupporting large-scale production to taking
the environment increasingly into
account. But problems remain. A greener
CAP could promote socially and ecologicallysound livestock production.

62 AUTHORS AND SOURCES
FOR DATA AND GRAPHICS
64 RESOURCES
66 ABOUT US
5INTRODUCTIONF

ood is very personal. It is not just a need. Foodoften embodies certain feelings: familiarity,
relaxation, routine, or even stress. We eat indifferent types of situations and have our own,
very personal preferences.
At the same time, however, we are more andmore alienated from what is on our plates, on thetable and in our hands. Do you sometimes wonder
where the steak, sausage or burger you are eating
comes from? Personal satisfaction reflects ethicaldecisions, and private concerns can be very political in nature. Each of us ought to decide what
we want to eat. But responsible consumption issomething that an increasing number of people
demand. Then again, they need information onwhich to base their decisions.
How can normal consumers understand theglobal impact caused by their meat consumption?
How many people realize that our demand formeat is directly responsible for clearing the Amazon rainforest? Who is aware of the consequencesof industrial livestock production for poverty andhunger, displacement and migration, animal welfare, or on climate change and biodiversity?

N

one of these concerns are visible on themeat and sausage packages in the supermarket. On the contrary, big agribusinesses
try to play down the adverse effects of our highmeat consumption. Advertising and packaging
in developed countries convey an image of happy
animals on happy farms. In reality, the suffering
the animals endure, the ecological damage andthe social impacts are swept under the carpet.

„

THERE ARE ALTERNATIVESIn many countries, consumers are
fed up with being deluded by theagribusiness. Instead of using publicmoney to subsidize factory farms – as in
the United States and European Union –,consumers want reasonable policies
that promote ecologically, socially andethically sound livestock production.

6

One in every seven people in the world does
not have adequate access to food. We are a longway from realizing the internationally recognizedright to quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient
food. On the contrary, almost a billion people in
the world go hungry, largely because the middle
classes’ craving for meat creates large-scale, intensive livestock and food industries.
In many countries, consumers are fed up withbeing deluded by the agribusiness. Instead of using public money to subsidize factory farms – asin the United States and European Union – consumers want reasonable policies that promoteecologically, socially and ethically sound livestock
production. As a result, a central concern of theHeinrich Böll Foundation is to provide information about the effects of meat production and tooffer alternatives.

W

hile governments in the developed world
have to radically change course and struggle against the power of the agricultural
lobby, developing countries can avoid repeating
the mistakes made elsewhere. If they know about
the effects of intensive meat production, they canplan for a future-oriented form of production thatis socially, ethically and environmentally responsible. Instead of trying to export their failed model,
Europe and the United States should attempt toshow that change is both necessary and possible.
There are alternatives. Meat can be producedby keeping animals on pasture instead of in buildings, and by producing feed locally rather thanshipping it thousands of kilometres. Manure does
not have to burden nature and the health of thelocal population; it can be spread on the farmer’s
own fields to enrich the soil.
Our atlas invites you to take a trip around theworld. It gives you insights into the global connections made when we eat meat. Only informed, critical consumers can make the right decisions anddemand the political changes needed.

Barbara Unmüßig
President, Heinrich Böll Foundation

MEAT ATLAS„CATALYZING THE DEBATEThe current industrialized andcorporate-led system is doomed
to fail. We need a radical overhaul offood and farming if we want to feed agrowing world population without
destroying the planet.

F

ood is a necessity, an art, an indulgence.
But the global system for producing food isbroken. While people in some parts of theworld do not have enough to eat, others sufferfrom obesity. Millions of tonnes of food are wasted
and thrown away, and perversely, crops are converted into biofuels to feed cars in Europe and theAmericas.
At the same time, the natural world uponwhich we all depend is being damaged and destroyed. Ecological limits are being stretched as
our demand for ever more resources takes precedence over the need to protect biodiversity andthe Earth’s vital ecosystems. Forests and precious
habitats are being cleared to make way for vast
monocultures to supply industrialized countries.
Farming is being intensified and wildlife wipedout at unprecedented rates.

Over the past 50 years, the global food system has become heavily dependent oncheap resources, chemical sprays anddrugs. It is increasingly controlled by a handful ofmultinational corporations. The social impacts ofthis system are devastating: small-scale farmers
worldwide are driven off their land, both obesityand food poverty are rife, and taxpayers and citizens are increasingly footing the bill for one foodcrisis after another. In this corporate-controlled
food system, profits always come before people
and planet.
Nothing epitomizes what is wrong with ourfood and farming more than the livestock sector
and the quest for cheap and plentiful meat. Manyof the world’s health pandemics in the past years
have stemmed from factory farms. Livestock raising is one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters,
and is responsible for the use of huge amounts of
the world’s grain and water. Worldwide, livestock
are increasingly raised in cruel, cramped conditions, where animals spend their short lives under artificial light, pumped full of antibiotics andgrowth hormones, until the day they are slaughtered.
What is truly scandalous is that it doesn’t haveto be like this. We produce enough calories in theworld to feed everyone, even with an increasing
global population. We know how to farm without destroying the environment and without imposing cruel conditions on the animals we breed,
without corporate-owned and controlled seeds

MEAT ATLAS

and chemicals. Sustainable farming exists inwhich farmers produce meat and dairy products
from numerous smaller farms, grow their own
crops to feed their animals, and allow animals tograze freely.
There are millions of local markets, and numerous small, innovative food companies. Thereis huge public support for sustainable farming:
people are building an alternative global food system that is based on food sovereignty, and ensures
everyone’s right to safe, nutritious, sustainable
and culturally appropriate food.
There is increasing international recognition
that the current industrialized and corporate-led
system is unsustainable and doomed to fail. We
need a radical overhaul of food and farming if wewant to feed a growing world population without
destroying the planet. This system needs to havefood sovereignty at its heart.

This publication sheds light on the impactsof meat and dairy production, and aims tocatalyse the debate over the need for better,safer and more sustainable food and farming. We
hope to inspire people to look at their own consumption, and politicians at all levels to take action to support those farmers, processors, retailers
and networks who are working to achieve change.
As a species, we need to be smarter. It is time toacknowledge that the corporate-controlled foodsystem is broken. It is time to curtail the power of
those vested interests that want to keep it. Revolutionizing the way we produce and consume meatis just the start. We need to create a world where
we use natural resources in a more efficient way.
We need to ensure these resources are fairly distributed, and that everyone on this planet, bothtoday and tomorrow, has access to safe, sufficient,sustainable and nutritious food.

Magda Stoczkiewicz
Director, Friends of the Earth Europe

7

LESSONS TO LEARNABOUT MEAT AND THE WORLD1

DIET IS NOT JUST APRIVATE MATTER. Each mealhas very real effects on the lives ofpeople around the world, on theenvironment, biodiversity and theclimate that are not taken into
account when tucking into a pieceof meat.

Water, forests, land use, climate and biodiversity:

2

THE ENVIRONMENT COULD EASILY BE PROTECTED
by eating less meat, produced in a different way.

3

THE MIDDLE CLASSES AROUND
THE WORLD EAT TOO MUCH MEAT.
Not only in America and Europe, but
increasingly in China, India and otheremerging countries as well.

4

HIGH MEAT CONSUMPTIONLEADS TO INDUSTRIALIZEDAGRICULTURE. A few
international corporations
benefit and further
expand their market
power.

5
Consumption is rising mainly because

CITY DWELLERS ARE EATING
MORE MEAT. Population growth
plays a minor role.

8

MEAT ATLASCompared to other agricultural
sectors, poultry production has
the strongest international links, ismost dominated by large producers,
and has the highest growth rates.

7

SMALL-SCALE PRODUCERS,
THE POULTRY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT SUFFER.

use of antibiotics andhormones, as wellas the overuse ofagrochemicals in
feed production.

6

Urban and small-scale rural
livestock can make an important

CONTRIBUTION TO POVERTY
REDUCTION, GENDER EQUALITY
AND A HEALTHY DIET – notonly in developing countries.

10

8
9

EATING MEAT DOES NOT HAVE TO DAMAGE
THE CLIMATE AND THE ENVIRONMENT. On
the contrary, the appropriate use of agricultural land byanimals may even have environmental benefits.

Alternatives exist. Many existing
initiatives and certification

SCHEMES SHOW WHATA DIFFERENT TYPE
OF MEAT PRODUCTIONMIGHT LOOK LIKE – onethat respects environmental
and health considerations
provides appropriate
conditions for animals.

MEAT ATLASINTENSIVELY PRODUCED MEAT
IS NOT HEALTHY – through the

11

CHANGE IS POSSIBLE. Somesay that meat consumption patterns
cannot be changed. But a whole
movement of people are now eating
less meat, or no meat at all. To
them it is not a sacrifice; it is partof HEALTHY LIVING AND

A MODERN LIFESTYLE.

9

THE RISE OF THE GLOBAL MARKETThe developed world has fewer and fewer farmers, but they are keeping more
and more animals. Instead of producing for the local market, they supply
distant supermarkets. This same shift is now transforming livestock productionin the developing world.

Trade

Trade

World, forecast 2013,
million tonnes

13.8

0.9
68.1

114.2

308.2

10

pigs
other
sheep, goats

beef, veal
poultry

Consumption

World, forecast 2013,
percent

World, per capita,
forecast 2013, kg per year

9.9
8.6

7.2

106.4

beef, veal
poultry

FAO

World, forecast 2013,
million tonnes

FAO

Production

FAO

Pig and poultrymarkets are
growing; beef andsheep markets arestagnatingsupermarket, in which town, and with what typeof marketing its pork chops will be sold.
But the production conditions are now very
different from before. Industrial livestock production in Europe and the USA began when feed,
energy and land were inexpensive. Nowadays, allthree are scarce and costs have gone up. As a result, total meat production is growing less quickly
than before. The market is growing only for pigs
and poultry. Both species utilize feed well and canbe kept in a confined space. This means that they
can be used to supply the insatiable demand forcheap meat. By 2022, almost half the additional
meat consumed will come from poultry.
Beef production, on the other hand, is scarcely
growing. The USA remains the world’s largest beef
producer, but the meat industry describes the situation there as dramatic. For 2013, it expects a fallof 4-6 percent compared to 2012 and predicts thedecline to continue in 2014. In other traditional
producing regions including Brazil, Canada andEurope, production is stagnating or falling.
The star of the day is India, thanks to its buffalo
meat production, which nearly doubled between
2010 and 2013. India is forcing its way onto theworld market, where 25 percent of the beef is infact now buffalo meat from the subcontinent. According to the US Department of Agriculture, India became the world’s biggest exporter of beef in2012 – just ahead of Brazil. Buffaloes are inexpensive to keep. This makes their meat a dollar a kilo
cheaper than beef from cattle. In addition, theIndian government has invested heavily in abattoirs. Faced with the high price of feed, Brazilian
cattle-raisers are switching to growing soybeans.

FAO

Overall, the global demand for meat is growing, but at different rates in different regions. In Europe and the United States, thebiggest meat producers in the 20th century, consumption is growing slowly, or is even stagnating.
On the other hand, the booming economies in
Asia and elsewhere, will see around 80 percent of
the growth in the meat sector by 2022. The biggest
growth will be in China and India because of hugedemand from their new middle classes.
The pattern of production is following suit.
South and East Asia are undergoing the same rapid transformation that occurred in many industrialized countries several decades ago. In the
1960s in Europe and the USA, many animals
were kept in small or medium-sized herds on
grazing land. They were slaughtered and processed on the farm or in an abattoir nearby.
Meat and sausage were produced in the same locality or region. Today, this mode of livestock production has almost died out. In the USA, the number of pig raisers fell by 70 percent between 1992
and 2009, while the pig population remained thesame. During the same period, the number ofpigs sold by a farm rose from 945 to 8,400 a year.
And the slaughter weight of an animal has goneup from 67 kilograms in the 1970s, to around 100
kilograms today.
In China, more than half the pigs are still produced by smallholders. This is changing fast. The
same technologies and capital investments that
dominate livestock production in the developed
world are penetrating developing countries – andthey are integrated in global value chains. Whena piglet is born, its fate is already sealed: in which

33.3

30.2

100

13.3

90.1

pigs
other
sheep, goatsdomestic consumption
export43.1
79.3

developed
developing

world

MEAT ATLAS

23.0

11.4

1.4

0.6
0.9

12.4

1.7

8.1

0.5

1.6
EU

13.1

USA

9.7

0.3
0.1
3.3

2.8

Turkey

0.5

0.4

2.9

0.3

0.5
0.1 Saudi Arabia

Egypt

0.3
2.9

Iran

0.8
0.7

1.5

0.2

0.1
0.3

2.6

0.3

Chile

1.7

0.2

Uruguay

Malaysia

Indonesia

0.2
2.1

beef, veal
pigs
poultry
sheep, goats

0.6

Australia
0.6

0.2

0.5

New Zealand

Whereas the developed world still dominates,
growth now relies on the developing countries.
Nevertheless, only one-tenth of the world’s meatis traded internationally. This is because meat can
only be exported if it meets and can document
the quality requirements of the importing countries. Importers and consumers fear diseases suchas mad cow disease, foot-and-mouth disease andavian flu. The temporary interruption of the poultry market in Southeast Asia and the complete
collapse of British beef exports have shown how
international trade can dry up overnight.

Small animals in big groups – poultry take off

A stable outlook – only if speculation is limited

pigs
sheep, goats

Real meat prices, trends and forecast, in dollars per tonne
beef, veal
poultry

5,000

120

OECD/FAO

Meat production, trends and forecast, in million tonnes

OECD/FAO

This presents an opportunity – albeit a small one –for Indian buffalo-meat exporters.
Africans are also starting to eat more meat,
though both supply and demand are still not
growing as fast as in other parts of the world. Production has risen in many countries in Africa, but
significantly only in populous South Africa, Egypt,
Nigeria, Morocco and Ethiopia. A typical Africaneats only 20 kilograms of meat a year – well below
the world average. Imports of cheap poultry meat
have increased, though often at the expense of local producers.

140

1.0
0.3

Argentina

beef, veal
poultry

0.1

0.5

Bangladesh

Million tonnes, average 2010-2012,
data for 2012 are estimated

0.1

0.7

0.2

1.5

South Africa

1.8

0.2

Korea

1.5

0.2

0.5

Japan
0.7

0.9

0.8
0.5

Pakistan

Mexico

0.6
0.5

China

India

0.1

0.9

1.3

1.0

1.7
0.3

0.2

0.2

Algeria

Brazil

1.4
4.1

Ukraine

1.0

0.1

6.5

Russia1.2

Canada

1.2

17.1
0.2

0.4

10.2

1.8

50.4

3.2
2.5

2.1

19.2

FAO

Worldwide meat production

pigs
sheep, goats

4,000

100
80

3,000

60

2,000

40

1,000

20
0
1995

MEAT ATLAS

0
1999

2003

2007

2011

2015

2019

2021

1991

1996

2001

2006

2011

2016

2021

11

CONCENTRATION: ECONOMIESOF SCALE BUT LESS DIVERSITY
Economic imperatives are the driving force behind the consolidation of the
global meat industry. This may mean more efficient production, but it also
concentrates market power in the hands of just a few, much to the detrimentof smallholders. And it may be risky for consumers, too.

In September 2013, Shuanghui International
Holdings Ltd. – the largest shareholder of China’s biggest meat processor – completed a 7.1
billion-dollar purchase of US-based Smithfield
Foods, Inc., the world’s biggest pork producer. The
sale exemplifies a new kind of consolidation that ishappening across borders. The direction of investment is changing: it is now heading North fromthe global South. This reflects related shifts ineconomic growth, consumer demand, manageTight margins
ment skills and corporate assertiveness over the
expose the businesslast two decades.
to volatile market
JBS SA, a beef company based in Brazil, set
thestage in the late 2000s, when it acquired
prices and trade
meat companies and poultry producers in thetensions
United States, Australia and Europe, as well as
in Brazil. JBS is now the world’s biggest producerof beef. With its 2013 acquisition of Seara Brasil,
a unit of rival company Marfrig Alimentos SA, it
is also the world’s largest chicken producer. JBS isamong the world’s top ten international food andbeverage companies, with food sales amounting
to 38.7 billion dollars in 2012.
It also has business units in leather, pet products, collagen and biodiesel. Though JBS is not ahousehold name, its annual food revenues arehigher than those of major global food players
such as Unilever, Cargill and Danone. These figures give us an idea of what JBS’s size means on theWorld food prices compared
FAO

Indices, 2002–4 = 100
pigs
sheep, goatsFAO

beef, veal
poultry
220

220

190

190

160

160

130

130

100

100

70

meat
dairy products
food

70
2007

12

Indices, 2002–4 = 100

FAO

World meat prices comparedground or at the slaughterhouse: its worldwide
capacities can slaughter 85,000 head of cattle,
70,000 pigs, and 12 million birds. Every day. The
meat is distributed in 150 countries as soon as the
carcasses are “disassembled” , i.e. when the flesh isseparated from the bone.
Because profit margins are tight in the meatbusiness, companies chase after economies ofscale. This means that they try to produce morewith greater efficiency and at a lower cost. For thisreason, the meat sector is concentrating in twosenses. Companies are getting bigger throughmergers and acquisitions – expanding across borders and across species. And meat production isintensifying, so that more animals are housed together and are processed more quickly and withless waste. However, some market analysts pointout that the meat business is inherently risky andthat, based on recent financial performance, themulti-species strategy may be backfiring due todifferent cultures and processes that pose challenges to newcomers. In other words, knowing
how to grow, slaughter, process and transport cattle may not translate easily into managing poultry
operations.
Volatile feed-grain prices add to the financial
risk in the meat sector: higher-priced feed means
higher production costs and lower profits. With
the deregulation of commodity markets at the

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2006

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

MEAT ATLASThe Top Ten of the international meat industry
LEATHERHEAD/ETC

Companies by total food sales (2011–13), billion dollars
7
Smithfield Foods.
Founded in 1936; 2012 revenues:
13.1 billion dollars. Largest pork
producer and processor in the USA.
Sold to Chinese Shuanghui
International Holdings Ltd., withrevenue of 6.2 billion dollars,in 2013

3
Cargill. Founded 1865,
family-owned business. 201333
revenues: 32.5 billion dollars.
22 percent share in the US meat
market, biggest single
33 exporter in Argentina,
worldwide operations

9

13 10 Danish Crown AmbA

Vion
9

13

Cargill1355Smithfield Foods

3

Tyson Foods

Vion. Founded in 2003
after several mergers.
2011 revenues: 13.2 billion
dollars. Largest meat processor
in Europe, rapid growth(2002: 1 billion
dollars)

7

8 Hormel Foods

2

37

10

Danish Crown AmbA.
Founded 1998 after several
mergers. 2012 revenues:
10.3 billion dollars. Major
subsidiaries in USA, Poland andSweden. Europe’s largest meatproducer, world’s biggest
pork exporter

Nippon Meat Packers
62
TysonFood.
Founded 1935; 2012 revenues:
33.3 billion dollars. World’s
largest meat producer andsecond-largest processor ofchicken, beef
and pork

10
Hormel Foods.
Founded 1891; 2012 revenues:
8.2 billion dollars.
40 manufacturing and distribution
facilities. Owner of “Spam”, aprecooked meat product;
focusing on ethnic food

6

1

JBS

15
BRF
4

13 1
Marfrig
8

JBS. Founded in 1953;
2012 revenues:
38.7 billion dollars. World’s largest
food-processing company, leader
in slaughter capacity. Recently
acquired Smithfield Foods’ beefbusiness and Malfrig’s poultry
4
and pork units
8
BRF. Founded in 2009 as
Marfrig. Founded
Brasil Foods after a mergerin 2000 after several mergers.
of Sadia and Perdigão. 20122012 revenues: 12.8 billion dollars.
revenues: 14.9 billion dollars.
Company units in 22 countries.
60 plants in Brazil, present
World’s fourth largest beef
in 110 countries
producer. In 2013, sold poultry
and pork units to JBS

turn of the 21st century, feed prices have becomeless dependent on supply and demand, and more
dependent on the speculative market manipulations that create price spikes. Add to that the rolebiofuels have had on prices for soy and maize, andthe volatility in the price of fertilizers. Goldman
Sachs, an investment bank and titan of commodity
trading, was ever-present in the Shuanghui-Smithfield deal. It had been hired to advise Smithfield on
any potential sale, and it owns a 5 percent stake in
Shuanghui. In 2012, Goldman made an estimated1.25 billion dollars from commodity trading.
Why does size matter? The implications of themeat industry’s two-tiered concentration – corporate consolidation and the intensification of meatproduction – are wide-ranging. It is virtually impossible for the consolidated industry to coexist
with small producers. These multinational structures both wipe out a critical source of income
for the global poor, and they radically diminish
consumer choices. Through economies of scale,concentration offers greater profit potential forstockholders and financiers; for other stakeholders, however, it increases risks to human health
MEAT ATLAS(including antibiotic resistance), food safety, animal welfare, the environment, water security, labour security and innovation.
Extreme efficiency itself also carries a risk. One
cattle feedlot operator in the United States saysthat he is unsure where the economies of scaleend, because 100,000-head feedlots for cattle are
now possible. Several exist in the United States
and their production costs are lower than forsmaller feedlots. Logistics in large production
units are manageable nowadays, but the larger the system, the more vulnerable it is. In an intensified environment, for example, pathogens
can spread more quickly and easily from one
animal to another, both on the feedlot and duringtransport. The same is true for the slaughterhouseas the speed of processing increases. Furthermore,in the event of a disaster, such as a flood, the system will not be able to maintain its capacity. And if
consumer demand declines, companies run witha low margin of safety may risk collapse. Therefore, insurance companies with custom-tailoredrisk assessments are becoming an important partof the modern meat business.

Nippon Meat Packers.
Founded in 1949;
2013 revenues: 12.8 billlion
dollars. Commonly known as
Nippon Ham. Operations in
59 locations in 12 countries,
mostly in Asia andAustralia

Consumers
may get lower
prices, but therisks to society
are higher

13

MAKING PRODUCTS FROM ANIMALS:
THE SLAUGHTER INDUSTRY
To get from steer to steak, the steer has to die. Today, slaughtering is highly
industrialized. Abattoirs are production lines with semi-skilled workers toilingin poor conditions. The industry has moved out of cities, hidden from view.
Animal-rights groups are questioning the ethics of the slaughter industry.

A
Abattoirworkers have low
status, endure poor
conditions, andearn little

t the start of the 20th century, Chicago was
the cradle of the slaughter industry. Using
moving production lines, it took just 15
minutes for a cow to be killed, fully eviscerated
and cut up. Up to 12 million animals were slaughtered annually in the city: this method was so efficient that Henry Ford adopted the production-line
process to make cars.
With industrialization, the slaughter process has become centralized worldwide. During the Great Depression of the twenties, several
dominant conglomerates emerged in the UnitedStates, followed by a long period of deconsolidation. But with the deregulation and stock
market boom of the 1970s, the sector again
concentrated rapidly. Between 1967 and2010, the number of slaughterhouses in the
United States fell from almost 10,000 to lessthan 3,000.
Today, ten corporations slaughter 88 percentof the total number of pigs. The global capacity of
the companies is hard to believe: Tyson Foods, a
US firm that is second only to the Brazilian company JBS, slaughters 42 million chickens, 170,000
cattle and 350,000 pigs – every week. These animals come from the company’s own breedingunits, and are processed in its own factories andoften sold under its own brand. This strategy aims
to extract as much profit as possible from thevalue chain “from field to fork”. In addition, theslaughterhouse may process animals from othercompanies too.

In poorer countries, the introduction of public
or private slaughterhouses is the first step towards
the processing of animals in a hygienic way. At theother end of this transformation, the efficient factories that are standard in industrial countries arenow spreading in the developing world. In thesefacilities, periodic food scandals are forcing stricter, costlier hygiene measures.
The battle for the lowest prices is therefore being fought on the workers’ backs. Millions of people worldwide work in slaughterhouses; no one
knows exactly how many. Their work is regarded
as “dirty”. Especially in Western industrialized
nations, they get little social recognition and areeven shunned. Low wages and terrible working
conditions are the rule rather than the exception. High-speed, monotonous work, the risk ofaccidents with dangerous equipment and chemicals, or strained backs and limbs all make for ahighly stressful combination. Other factors areheat or cold, constant noise, a risk of infectious
diseases, and early or late shifts, depending on
the type of work. Plus, the handling and slaughterof animals can add to the workers’ stress. Many
workers say they have to be especially “hard” todo their work.
With industrialization, the process of deskilling and mechanization also set in. Today’s slaughterhouse workers need few of their traditional
skills and craft knowledge. Instead, companies
hire cheap, semi-skilled workers. Migrants from
Mexico to North America, and from Eastern to

Slaughterhouses and market concentration in the USA
Market share of four firms in slaughter of cattle and pigs, percent

12,000

DENNY

Number of slaughter establishments

80
70

10,000

60
8,000

50

6,000

40

cattle
pigs

30

4,000

20
2,000
0

14

10
1967

1977

1987

1997

2007

0

1965

1975

1985

1995

2005

MEAT ATLASAnimals slaughtered worldwide
Official and estimated data, 2011, heads

1 383

296
000 000

24

000 000

000 000

buffaloes
cattle
goats
sheep
pigs

430
000 000

chickens
ducks
turkeysgeese andguinea fowl

58 110517
000 000

000 000

654
000 000

2 817
000 000

Slaughter by countries, four most important, 2011, heads

35 108 100
USA
cattle andbuffaloes

8 954 959 000
USA

46 193 000
China
21 490 000
India

5 370 102 000
Brazil39 100 000
Brazil59 735 680
Germany

110 956 304
USA

poultry

000 000

2 049 445 000
Indonesia

273 080 000
661 702 976
China
44 270 000
Vietnamsheep andgoats

84 110 000 China
India
38 600 000
28 980 000
Nigeria
Bangladesh
FAOSTATpigs

649

11 080 000 000
China

Western Europe work in the slaughterhouses for
short periods, and are largely defenceless against
the companies’ demands. Back in the 1960s, labour unions in the meat industry were still strong;in the last two decades they have had a muchharder time. Workers have little say in their work
conditions, and collective wage agreements are
unknown in most parts of the world.
In most industrial countries, the slaughterhouses have been relocated from the cities to therural periphery. The cruelty of slaughtering andimages of blood and squealing animals have tobe hidden from consumers’ eyes and ears. This reflects a modern social norm: violence is banishedfrom public view. Slaughtering and butchery are
made invisible for the majority. The connection
between the meat and the living animal that istrucked to town and dies in the slaughterhousehas been severed. What most consumers now see
MEAT ATLAS

is only a vacuum-packed meat product on a supermarket shelf.
Finally, the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses is subject to criticism on two fronts. The
animal welfare movement objects to frequentviolations of regulations and cruelty to animals,
such as long transports, inadequate anaesthesia,
or the beating of animals when they are driven
in the slaughterhouse.
The animal rights movement, on the other
hand, criticizes the mass-slaughter of animals
as a matter of principle: it says that meat production is always associated with violenceagainst animals. Animal rights activists do notwant to reform slaughter; they want to abolishit altogether. They say that the meat industry regards animals as mere products, whereas society
should recognize their individuality and capacity
for suffering.

We severed
the link between
living animals andthe packaged
products

15

BRIGHT PINK IN THE COLD CABINET
It’s goodbye to the neighbourhood butcher and hello to supermarket
chains. The shift to Big Retail is now washing over developing countries.
The demands of the rising middle classes are setting the agenda.

R

Slowing down in China

Expansion mode in India

Annual percentage change in store growth, 2010–14, and market shares, 2012, percent
12

6.5

11

Food retail chains, stores and planned additions
existing, 2012/13
planned, 2013/14

10
9

84.1

8

2.3
1.5

7

4.3

6

0.6
0.4
0.3

BUSINESS STANDARD

ket share of supermarkets in these countries rosefrom 10, to 50 or 60 percent. The second wave, inthe mid-to-late 1990s, focused on Central America
and Southeast Asia. By 2005, supermarkets accounted for 30–50 percent of the market share
there. The third wave began in 2000 and washedover China and India, as well as big latecomers
such as Vietnam. In only a few years, supermarket
sales in these countries were growing by 30 to 50
percent a year.
Why this huge shift? It is not only due to therising purchasing power of the middle classes,
but also to more fundamental changes in society.
In Pakistan, for example, cities are expanding soquickly that traditional methods of supplying
meat and dairy products cannot keep up with thedemand. The city of Lahore is growing by 300,000
people a year. The result is product shortages andpoor quality, factors that drive the middle classes
into the supermarkets, says the Express Tribune,a Pakistani daily. Working women, who are still
responsible for cooking for their families, have notime to go from shop to shop to check the meat
quality or haggle over prices.
Investing in spacious stores is worthwhile inplaces with thousands of potential customers. In
locations where mobility is high, such as the carfriendly suburbs of US cities, poor people cannot
find a grocery store within walking distance thatsells fresh produce they can prepare themselves.
The only food they can buy is ready-to-eat meals

EUROMONITOR

emember those butchers who cut up sides
of beef or pork in a tiled back room, andsold joints and sausages to customers over amarble counter in a room out front? In nearly all
the developed world, they have been consigned
to history. Meat today, pre-cooled to 0–4°C, isdelivered to supermarkets from the wholesaler
or direct from the abattoir. All the supermarket
staff have to do is put the goods in refrigerated
display cabinets, and customers can choose the“Food deserts”:
ready-packaged items themselves directly from
where convenience
the shelves. To keep self-service items looking
stores and fast-food
fresh for days on end, pork chops and chicken
outlets are the only
breasts are vacuum-packed in an environmentthat is as kept as germ-free as possible. The
source of foodpackaging is then filled with an oxygen-rich gas.
This gives beef and pork a red colour and suggests
freshness – even though they may already havebeen in storage for several days.
Meat, a luxury in many parts of the world only
10 or 20 years ago, is now a part of the daily diet fora growing number of people in developing countries. Big supermarket chains such as Walmart
from the USA, France’s Carrefour, the UK’s Tescoand Germany’s Metro are conquering the globe.
Their expansion has sparked huge investments
by domestic supermarket companies. The process
has been well researched. The first wave began in
the early 1990s in South America, in East Asian tiger economies like South Korea and Taiwan, andSouth Africa. Between 1990 and 2005, the mar-

+ 250

+ 125
602

500

5

+38–504

independent
chain

3
2
1
0
2010

16

2011

2012

2013
2014
(estimate)Yum!*
Hua Lai Shi
McDonald’s
Shigemitsu
Ting Hsin
Kungfuother fast-food chains
independent fast food

166
Domino’s McDonald’s

Yum!**Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, Taco BellMEAT ATLASMEAT ATLAS

Growth in the supermarket fridges
Retail value, 2012/13, million dollars, by country
600 +
300–599

150–299
0.1–149

EUROMONITOR

from fast-food outlets. Researchers call these areas“food deserts”. At the same time, the contents of
shoppers’ trolleys come from further and further
away. Products come from central warehouses
and big abattoirs that supply all the retail branches
in a region or even a whole country. The huge volumes and secure cold chains ensure that the items
are usually fresh, despite long transport distances.
Selling standardized products simplifies advertising and gives the supermarket chains enormous market power, enabling them to dictate
prices to their suppliers. At the same time, the supermarket chains compete with each other. Thispushes prices down, and means that locally produced products are relegated to particular niches.
With the opening of global markets, millions ofsmall-scale retailers have gone under because
they do not handle the volumes needed to justify
suitable cold rooms or to ensure the continuous
cooling of meat, eggs and milk.
Price wars and price dumping result in periodic scandals involving meat that is sold past its
sell-by date, produced using hormones, or mislabelled. Global supply chains are particularly complex for processed products. They have resulted
in donkey, water buffalo and goat meat ending
up on plates instead of beef in South Africa, andhorsemeat being sold as beef in Europe. In India,
meat labelled as buffalo in fact came from the illegal slaughter of cattle.
In China, the world’s biggest producer andconsumer of meat, pork is the most popular typeof meat. Most pigs are still raised by smallholders
rather than in intensive factory farms, although
this is changing and the government is pushinghard for intensive pig-raising. Big abattoirs arestill rare. Most slaughterhouses continue to use
manual or semi-mechanical methods, and hygiene conditions are seldom checked. Many places
lack a functioning cold chain, so most meat is soldto consumers already cooked. But the demand formeat from supermarkets is growing, and it now
accounts for 10 percent of total meat sales. Suchproducts are seen as “Western” and are growing
in popularity because they are cheap and associated with freshness, hygiene and comfort.
International fast food chains like McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) open new
branches in China every day: McDonald’s currently has around 1,700 restaurants, and KFC, themarket leader, has announced its 4,500th outlet.
Customers are familiar with pledges made bythese chains, ensuring that their suppliers are constantly certified and monitored. However, eaters’appetites have repeatedly been spoiled by foodscandals. In late 2012 and early 2013, KFC had tograpple with two separate cases of poultry meat
contaminated by antibiotics. Its business fell by
10 percent and had still not yet recovered by theautumn of 2013. McDonald’s was pulled into themire: its sales also declined. Retailers must fear
consumers – even in China.

no growth
negative growth

CA
UK

US

CN

DE

canned/preserved meat products

RU
TR

US

IR

CN

chilled processed meat
AR
RU
UK
US

FR
VE

MX

DE

IR

TR
NG

BR

UA
cheeseSAAR

USdrinking milk products

RU

DE

MX

IN

NG

VE

AR

CN

IR

FR

BR

ID

ZA

AU

RU
UK
US

FR

DE
TR

CN
IR

frozen processed poultry

UK
US

RU
FR

IR

DZ

ready meals (with/without meat)BR

AR Argentina
AU Australia
BR Brazil
CA Canada
CN China

DE Germany
DZ Algeria
FR France
ID Indonesia
IN India

IR Iran
MX Mexico
NG Nigeria
RU Russia
SA Saudi Arabia

TR Turkey
UA Ukraine
UK United Kingdom

US USAVE Venezuela
ZA South Africa

17FREE TRADE VERSUS SAFE FOOD
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement currently being
negotiated between the United States and the European Union promises to boost
trade and jobs. But it may also weaken existing consumer-protection laws on bothsides of the Atlantic.

In theory, liberalizing trade should increase economic activity and lift all boats, creating jobs
and economic growth for all. But reality can bequite different. Free-trade deals are no longer only
about quotas and tariffs. They can have a sizeable
impact on the ability of governments to set standards for meat production and to regulate theglobal meat industry – from animal welfare,
health, labelling and environmental protection to the industry’s corporate legal rights.
But approaches to food safety often differ
from country to country. The European Union
bases its safety rules for food and chemicals on
the “precautionary principle”. This cornerstoneof Union law permits the EU to provisionally restrict imports that might carry a human or environmental risk where the science is not definitive.
The United States states that it makes decisions
based on “sound science” and cost-benefit analysis, which in the case of GMOs has been based on
industry supplied data.
Despite their different food-safety regimes
and consumer preferences, the European Unionand the United States started negotiations for a

Officials discuss
lower barriers forpharmaceuticals
behindclosed doors

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership(TTIP) in 2013. Intended to bolster their fragile
economies, this could become the biggest bilateral free-trade agreement in history. The UnitedStates is the EU’s biggest market for agricultural
exports, and the EU is the United States’ fifth-largest trading partner for agricultural goods. Powerful interest groups on both sides of the Atlantic,
including the farm, feed and chemicals industries, are pushing hard for an agreement that dismantles barriers to trade in agriculture, including
the meat subsector.
Such an agreement could result in drasticchanges in standards on the use of antibiotics inmeat production, genetically modified organisms, animal welfare, and other issues. “Regulatory coherence” to expand trade between the United States and the EU sounds good in principle. But
the issues are complex. Consumers on both sidesof the Atlantic should be concerned that the TTIP
could derail attempts to strengthen food safety
and animal welfare in the meat industry. Industry
on both sides of the Atlantic will seek to lock in thelowest standards in order to expand its markets.

Winners and losers from transatlantic trade talks

Canada
-9.5
13.4
USA

6.9
Ireland

9.7
UK

IFO

Percentage expected gains and losses in real per capita income as a result of tougher competition in core markets.
Assumes that tariffs and non-tariff barriers are abolished, and other trade regimes remain unchanged.

7.3
Sweden 6.2
Finland

6.6
Spain

Mexico-7.2-9.5–-6.1-6.0–-3.1-3.0–0.0
0.1–3.0
3.1–6.0
6.1–13.4
no data

18

Australia-7.4

MEAT ATLASMEAT ATLAS

Meat trade between the USA and the EU

2010

2011

2012

946

1,154

988

1,652

2,031

2,154

USDA ERS

Imports and exports, million dollars

total meat tradeUSA
beef, veal

poultry, eggs

EU
136

231

223

298

326

355

219

218

199

741

868

845

pork

cheeseand health aspects of industrial animal production. Instead of driving standards to the bottom,
consumers and activists in the United States andthe EU should demand that governments use theopportunity of the TTIP to raise standards andrigorously regulate the meat industry. Or theyshould abandon the talks altogether.

Feed trade between the USA and the EU
Imports and exports, million dollars
2010

2011

2012

corn (maize)

43

239

18

sorghum

38

239

1

320

492

265

feed andfodderUSA

USDA ERSThe United States has for years tried to repulse
EU restrictions on genetically modified organisms and the use of controversial food and feed
additives. There is the case of ractopamine, usedin the United States as a feed additive to increaselean meat production in pork and beef. Its use isbanned in 160 countries, including the European
Union, largely because of the lack of independentscientific studies assessing its safety for humanhealth. Currently the United States is not allowed
to export meat from animals treated with ractopamine to the EU. American agribusiness and meatprocessing companies want the EU to lift this ban
and include the issue in the TTIP negotiations.
After several years of relative quiet, an old
trade dispute has been reopened. Under the TTIP,
the USA is once again seeking approval of peroxyacid, a substance with antimicrobial properties
commonly used in the USA to clean raw poultry
after slaughter. In the EU, using peroxyacid is seen
as contrary to the “farm to fork” concept of minimizing the use of chemicals, allowing only hotwater for decontaminating poultry.
Also, the TTIP presents an opportunity for
multinational corporations to bypass European
citizens’ opposition to genetically modified foods,
many of which are prohibited in the EU. The US
government and food companies have challenged these rules as unfair “technical barriers” totrade. Now, through closed and non-transparent
negotiations, the fear is that the EU will use the
TTIP negotiations as a reason to lower standards
on the use of genetically modified organisms.
The EU, for its part, is seeking to overturn the
US ban on beef imports from the EU. The UnitedStates prohibits the use or import of feed ingredients that are known to transmit bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or “mad cow disease”).
Food-safety advocates in the USA are concernedthat EU policies governing the use of feed additives made from ruminants are not strong
enough to prevent contamination. Since the EU
is currently considering relaxing the standards
that regulate the use of feed additives made fromruminants, the risk of trade in beef contaminatedwith BSE would increase.
Moreover, food-safety measures that seek toeliminate health and environmental impacts ofthe meat industry could be challenged underthe “investor-state dispute settlement” mechanism. This clause present in many trade agreements allows companies to sue governments forcompensation over rules that affect their profits.
Agribusiness firms are lobbying to make foodsafety standards “fully enforceable” through theinvestor-state mechanism in the TTIP. Since thismechanism gives international investors the legal
right to “stable investment conditions”, making
changes in environmental or animal health law
would be much more difficult.
The TTIP could also make it much more difficult to address the negative environmental, socialEU

oil seeds

2,072

1,632

2,676

soy

1,108

795

1,481

217

270

265

feed andfodder

872

928

1,016

oil seeds

847

897

976

olive oil19

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF STEAK
The price tag on a package of meat does not reflect the true cost of producing thecontents: the hidden costs to the environment and the taxpayer are much higher.
If these costs are included, livestock raising would probably make a net loss.

A
Damageto nature is
hard to measure
in monetaryterms

round 1.3 billion people worldwide live
from animal husbandry – most of them indeveloping countries. The majority graze
their animals on land around the village, somemove from place to place with their herds, andothers keep a few chickens, cattle or pigs near
their homes. In the developed world and rapidly growing economies, the number of livestock
keepers is falling. The livestock sector is becoming
industrialized and meat producing companies
are expanding.
The profits of these companies are notjust a result of their own efforts. They are also
built on the environmental damage caused byfactory farming and the use of livestock feed –costs that the companies do not have to pay. In
addition, they receive subsidies from the state.
These subsidies are often distributed true to themotto: the bigger the company, the higher thesubsidy. No consolidated economic and ecological accounting has yet been done, but we can discern its broad outlines. When an animal productis purchased, three prices have to be paid: one by
the consumer, one by the taxpayer and one bynature. The consumer uses the first price to judge
the item’s value. The other two prices represent
hidden subsidies to the people who produce andmerchandise it.
The costs borne by the environment are probably the biggest, but they are hard to calculate.
Over the last three decades, economists and ac-

countants have developed their own “environmental-economic accounting” that estimatesdamage to nature in monetary terms. It covers thecosts of factory farming that do not appear on thecompany’s balance sheet, such as money saved bykeeping the animals in appalling conditions. Costs
to nature are incurred by over-fertilization causedby spreading manure and slurry on the land andapplying fertilizers to grow fodder maize and other crops. If the quality of water in a well declines
because of high nitrate content, the costs are
hard to calculate: they often are only recognizedwhen the well has to be capped and drinking water shipped in from somewhere else. Other externalities – costs that do not appear in the consumer
price – arise if over-fertilization means the soil can
no longer function as a filter for rainwater, if erosion carries it away, if biodiversity declines, or if
algal blooms kill fish and deter tourists.
However, for the majority, the most extensive
damage occurs further away from the cause. Intensive livestock production releases nitrogencompounds such as ammonia into the atmosphere, contributing markedly to climate change.
According to the European Nitrogen Assessment
in 2011, this damage amounted to some 70 to 320
billion dollars in Europe. The authors of this study
concluded that this sum could exceed all the profits made in the continent’s agricultural sector.
If this were counted, the sector as a whole would
make a loss.

Different regions, different levels of support
OECD

Percentage of gross farm
receipts from government
for livestock, by region,
classification by OECD,
2010–12

24.3

Commonwealth of
Independent States

12.5
4.8

Europe14.4

North America
Asia
2.61
Southern hemisphere

20

MEAT ATLAS

Direct subsidies for animal products and feed

1.5

OECD

Industrialized countries (OECD members), estimates for 2012, in billion dollars
eggs

18.0
beef and veal

milk

7.3

15.3

pigmeatpoultry

2.3

1.1

6.5

sheep

soybeans

MEAT ATLAS

can pay so little only if the state does not impose astatutory minimum wage.
Few poor countries can subsidize their farmers
in this way. Instead, they tend to support themthrough laws that permit the exploitation ofpeople and the environment. To remain thecheapest suppliers of feed or meat in the world
market, governments allow workers to toilin slave-like conditions and for little pay, theylease government land to large-scale producers
at cheap rates, and they fail to act against loggers
who clear areas of land for ranchers to occupy.

Poor countries
support theindustry throughweak laws andlax controls

Farmers’ income from public money
Industrialized countries (OECD members), percentage of gross farm receipts,
by animal productOECD

In China, the immediate costs of over-fertilization are estimated at 4.5 billion dollars a year,
mainly because water quality suffers from intensive livestock production. The main problem
is that in rapidly developing areas of East Asia,
farmers and agricultural firms are replacing the
traditional organic fertilizers – manure and faeces – with synthetic nitrogen. Manure, which used
to be considered the best type of fertilizer in integrated farming, now has to be disposed of somehow – in a river, on a dump, or trucked to where it
can be used. To ensure the highest yields, the fields
are fertilized with commercial agrochemicals
containing readily soluble nutrients as well. This
results in a double burden on the environment.
Cheap meat is made possible only by polluting theenvironment.
The other big unknown in the real price ofmeat are subsidies using public funds. A packageof subsidies may consist of many different components. The European Union offers subsidies for
fodder crops and supports up to 40 percent of thecost of investing in new animal housing. A crisis
fund, set up in 2013, can be used to support factory
farms, for example to support the export of meatand milk powder.
Further burdens are heaped onto national
taxpayers. They pay for the costs of transport infrastructure, such as ports needed to handle thefeed trade. In many countries, meat is subject to a
reduced level of value added tax. In addition, low
wages in abattoirs make it possible to produce
meat cheaply. From a political point of view, low
wages can be seen as subsidies because companies

1995–97
2010–12

50

40

30

20

10

0

beef, veal

pigs

poultry

sheep

milk

eggs

21

WHY FARMS KILL FISH: BIODIVERSITYLOSS ON LAND AND IN WATER
Overfertilization harms plants and animals and damages ecosystems worldwide.
Nitrates in groundwater can cause cancer. In coastal waters, they can result inoxygen-starved “dead zones”.

P

ut lots of nitrogen in a body of water and its
oxygen content goes down. How serious a
problem that is can be seen in the coastal
waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Around the mouthsof the Mississippi, some 20,000 square kilometres

Agriculture’s share of total environmental impact

35

area usedOECD

Industrial countries (OECD members), 2007–9, in percent

245

water used70
energy usedpesticide purchases

890
ammoniaemissions75
emissions ofozone-damaging
methylbromide

greenhouse gas
emissions40

70
nitrogenoxidemethane1

carbondioxideWater pollution:
30*
80*
nitrates insurface water70*
phosphorus insurface water

22

70*
nitrates ingroundwater

nitrates incoastal waters50*

phosphorus ingroundwater* maximum valueof the sea have so little oxygen that a “dead zone”
has formed, in which shrimp and fish cannot survive. In 2011, researchers found that sperms weregrowing in the sex cells of female fish in the Gulf
because a lack of oxygen was interfering with
their enzyme balance.
The cause of this marine desolation lies in theover-fertilization of the Mississippi basin, where
almost all the United States’ feed production andindustrial farms are concentrated. Nitrogen andphosphorus are washed down the river into theGulf. There these nutrients stimulate the growthof algae, aquatic plants and bacteria, which use
up the oxygen dissolved in the seawater. A litre of
seawater commonly holds around 7 milligrams of
dissolved oxygen; around the mouths of the Mississippi it holds less than 2 milligrams. The only organisms active here are those that do not dependon oxygen to live.
The US marine biologist Peter Thomas says thataround 250,000 square kilometres of coastal waters worldwide suffer from severe seasonal oxygen
deficiency. In Asia, pig and poultry farms in coastal China, Vietnam and Thailand pollute the South
China Sea with nitrogen. The northern part of the
Caspian Sea is loaded with nitrogen that comes
down the Volga. Many of the seas surrounding
Europe are affected: the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea,
the Irish Sea, the Spanish coast and the Adriatic
all have dead zones. The problems are caused not
only by nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, butalso by potassium, drug residues, disease-causingorganisms and heavy metals.
It is not just the seas: industrialized livestock
production harms the land too. Slurry and manure from livestock-producing areas are applied,often indiscriminately, to the soil. They can posean even greater threat than the overuse of mineral
fertilizer, especially on well-drained soils. Nitrates
are washed down into the groundwater, which
can lead to contamination of our drinking waterand damage our health. In our bodies they can beconverted into nitrosamines, which are suspected
to cause cancer of the oesophagus and stomach.
Over-fertilization threatens the habitat of nearly
all the endangered species on the Red List compiled by the International Union for Conservationof Nature. Excessive use of chemical fertilizers,
pesticides and herbicides harms organisms in thesoil and water, and damages ecosystems.
MEAT ATLAS

Fodder fields and the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico
Mississippi River drainage basin, land use and water pollution

FAO

Tropical rainforests are especially rich in biodiversity, but more than one-fifth of the Amazon
rainforest has already been destroyed. Livestock is
one of the major causes: trees are cleared to create
pastures or grow soy to feed animals. And many ofthe pastures are turned into soy fields after a few
years. The widespread conversion of pasture tocropland to produce feed in South America andEurope cuts biodiversity, since grassland usuallycontains more species and offers a better habitatfor insects and other small animals. But intensive
grazing often leads to a loss of native species, as
farmers sow new types of grass that are more valuable as feed. This marginalizes other species. Fencing to convert an open range into ranches can cut
the migration routes of wild animals, keep themaway from waterholes, and trigger local overgrazing by cattle.
Mixed farms, where crops and animals aremanaged on the same farm, often have various
patches of vegetation – hedges, woodlots and gardens – which support a range of insects and small
animals as well as certain wild plants. In Europe,
the USA, South America and East and Southeast
Asia, many such mixed farms are being rapidly
replaced by “landless” systems to raise pigs andpoultry on an industrial scale. In such systems, theanimals are fed with crops purchased from otherfarms and often from abroad. This is one of themain reasons for the nutrient imbalances in freshwater, soils and the ocean.
In industrial systems, the genetic diversity of
the livestock itself is usually very narrow because

cropped land
dedicated to feedless than 5 percent
less than 20 percent
20–50 percent
more than 50 percent
hypoxic zone due to nitrogen and phosphate loads

farmers all over the world are offered the samefew breeding lines. Animals are no longer adapted
to their diverse natural environments. Instead,they are bred to suit the uniform conditions of
livestock houses, where the temperature, moisture and light are carefully controlled and feed
comes from the global market. In other words,
biodiversity is at its lowest in a livestock pen on
an industrial farm.

The oversized
footprint of factory
farms: growing
feed and spreading
slurryMain sources of nitrogen, 2005
livestockfertilizers

MEAT ATLAS

ENA

Nitrogen on land and in the aquatic system

23

A SPECIES-POOR PLANET
The genetic basis of livestock is getting ever narrower. We are relying on a few,
specialized breeds of animals, such as the black-and-white Holstein-Friesian
dairy cattle that are raised in over 130 countries. A few high-yielding strains also
dominate the production of chickens, goats, pigs and sheep.

H
One breeding
cock can sire up
to 28 million
genetically similar
offspringumankind has domesticated 30 species of
livestock, and in doing so has created anincredible range of breeds: around 8,000
have so far been documented by the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO). Many of these breeds are kept by smallscale livestock keepers – the majority of whom
are women – who produce most of the world’s
meat while conserving the world’s livestock
diversity. For many poor households, animals,
especially chickens, sheep and goats, are an
important source of livelihood. They choose indigenous, multipurpose breeds because they are
adapted to local, often harsh conditions.
Eight types of livestock are used in heavy industrial production: cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens, turkeys, ducks and rabbits. Of these, a few
breeds have been developed further. The industry has developed these into a few high-yielding
breeding lines, which are crossbred to produce theanimals that we eat. Such hybrid breeding is usedespecially in poultry and pigs, further restricting
the genetic diversity in these animals.

Presence of Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle

Presence of Large White pig

24

FAO

Two winners of globalization

The 1950s marked the advent of the wide-scalecommercial production of meat and a concomitant loss of genetic diversity. Corporate breeders
focused on maximizing production and commercially useful traits such as rapid growth, efficient
feed conversion and high yields. The result is highperformance and genetically uniform breeds that
require high-protein feeds, costly pharmaceuticals and climate-controlled housing to survive.
Now, a small number of transnational firms
supply commercial breeds for an ever-increasing
share of the world’s meat markets. The companies
also dominate research and development in thehighly-concentrated animal genetics industry,
particularly for poultry, swine and cattle.
One third of the world’s pig supply, 85 percent of
the traded eggs and two-thirds of the milk production come from these breeds.
In the poultry sector, four firms account for 97
percent of poultry research and development. In
broilers, three companies control a 95 percent
market share. Two companies control an estimated 94 percent of the breeding stock of commercial layers. Two companies supply virtually
all of the commercial turkey genetics.
The top four companies account for two-thirdsof the total industry research and developmentof both swine and cattle.
While aquaculture currently accounts for asmall slice of the industry, it is the fastest growing sector. Many of the top animal genetics firms
have recently taken the plunge into aquaculture. They work with only a handful of species,
primarily Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, tropical shrimp and tilapia.
Most of the global suppliers of livestock genetics are privately held and do not publish figureson revenues or investments, nor do they provide
an inventory of their proprietary germplasm or
breeding stock collections. This means that there
is not much information being made publicly
available about the size of private-sector animal
genetics markets, and the sales and prices of genetic materials. But it is clear that the market forcommercial animal genetics is tiny compared tothe commercial seed market, its crop counterpart.
China is now the world’s largest consumer ofmeat, with pork being the country’s most popular protein, and demand is rocketing. The vast
majority of China’s pork supply still comes from“backyard” pig producers, but Chinese policies
favouring vertical integration, where one firm
MEAT ATLASAnimal genetics industry: the Big Seven global breeders

Genus

5

Hendrix Genetics
EW Group

3Groupe Grimaud

2

4

Tyson Foods
7
7
Tyson Foods.
Sold 33 billion dollars worth ofbroilers in 2012. Subsidiary6
Cobb-Vantress distributes
Smithfields Foods.
broiler breeding stock to
World’s largest pork processor
more than 90
and pig producer. Turnover 13 billicountries
on dollars (2012); in 2013 acquiredby Shuanghui, China’s largest meat
processor, for 7.1 billion dollars,
including the company’s pig
breeding subsidiary

2

3

6

EW Group. The world’s
largest player in industrial poultry
genetics. Sells broilers, layers,
turkeys; aquaculture. Formerly theErich Wesjohann Group.
Privately held, norevenues published; 5,600
employees (2011)

Genus. Sells pigs,
dairy and beef cattle.
Revenues of 550 million dollars
in 2012. Operates in 30 countries, sells to another 40.
2,100 employees(2012)

manages several stages in the production process, mean that by 2015, half the country’s pigs
will come from factory farms. Although China ishome to more pig diversity than any other country, Chinese factory farms rely on imported breeding stock. Numerous swine genetics firms haverecently announced deals with China. This trend
is likely to accelerate as a result of the 2013 purchase of Smithfield Foods, for 7.1 billion dollars, by
China’s largest meat processor, Shuanghui International. Smithfield Premium Genetics, the company’s pig breeding subsidiary, is part of the deal.
As industrial-scale livestock production replaces
China’s small-scale pig producers and chicken
farmers, Chinese factory farms, like those in the
United States, increasingly rely on high levels ofantibiotics in feed to promote faster growth and tohelp livestock survive crowded conditions.
The tightly-held ownership and control ofbreeding stock for industrial, large-scale animal
production contrasts sharply with, and threatens
the survival of, millions of smallholder farmers,
fishers and pastoralists. In a world facing climatechange, breeds that are resistant to drought, extreme heat or tropical diseases are of major potential importance as sources of unique genetic material for breeding programs. In 2007, 109 countries
signed the Interlaken Declaration on Animal
Genetic Resources. This declaration affirms theircommitment to ensure that the world’s animal
biodiversity is used to promote global food security, and remains available to future generations.
It also notes that “continuing erosion and loss ofanimal genetic resources for food and agriculture
will compromise efforts to achieve food security,
MEAT ATLAS

5

Hendrix Genetics.
Sells layers, turkeys, pigs;
aquaculture. Privately held,
2,400 employees (2012). Joint
development agreement withTyson Foods’ Cobb-Vantresssubsidiary

4Groupe Grimaud.
Sells broilers, layers, pigs;
aquaculture. Privately held;
turnover 330 million dollars(2011), of which 75 percent
is international
trade

Charoen Pokphand Group1
1
Charoen Pokphand Group.
Sells broilers and pigs;
aquaculture. Agro-industrial andtelecoms giant with annual
revenues of 33 billion dollars, with feed,farm and food revenues of 11.3 billion
dollars (2013), including animal
breeding operations
and pork units

improve human nutritional status and enhancerural development.”
According to FAO’s 2012 update on the state oflivestock biodiversity, almost one-quarter of the
8,000 unique farm animal breeds are at risk of extinction, primarily due to the growth of the industrial livestock sector. The narrow genetic diversityof commercial animal breeds increases their vulnerability to pests and diseases. It also poses longterm risks for food security because it shuts out
options to respond to future environmental challenges, market conditions and societal needs, allof which are unpredictable. In the face of climatechange, the long-term sustainability of livestockkeeping communities, as well as industrial livestock systems, is jeopardized by the loss of animal
genetic diversity.

Dominating the livestock industry
Market share of breeds for milk, beef and pork production in the United States, in percent

83
Holsteins

60
Angus,
Hereford,
Simmental

MEDILL

Smithfield Foods

ETC GROUP/USDA

Companies and profiles

75
from threevarieties

25

ANTIBIOTICS: BREEDING SUPERBUGS
Industrial producers use large amounts of pharmaceuticals to prevent diseases fromspreading like wildfire among animals on huge factory farms, and to promote faster
growth. But this is dangerous: bacteria are developing resistance to drugs that arevital to treat diseases in humans.

C
Much stricter
controls worldwide
are needed tostop the abuse of
medicines

ause of death: scratched knee. What sounds
like fiction could soon be reality. The World
Health Organization (WHO) warns that if
we continue our reckless use and abuse of antibiotics in animal husbandry, we could enter a postantibiotic era in which health conditions thatare now easily curable will again become lethal.
In spite of this, few countries have addressed theuse of antibiotics in livestock raising. Antibiotics
are used to ensure that the animals endure theconditions in factory farms until slaughter. A
large part, however, is also used to increase andspeed growth. Pigs that are given antibiotics,
for ex- ample, need 10 to 15 percent less feed toreach their market weight.
Although the European Union prohibited
antibiotics to promote growth in 2006, this did
not lead to a significant decrease in their use on
farms. Systematic inquiries have recently revealed
that 8,500 tonnes of antimicrobial ingredientswere distributed in 25 European countries in2011. Germany has the highest (overall) consumption at 1,600 tonnes a year. However Denmark,where veterinarians are subject to relatively tightcontrols, reports only a third of the German per
animal head level.
In other parts of the world, the use of thesevaluable drugs is subject to hardly any regulations
or restrictions whatsoever. In China, it is estimatedthat more than 100,000 tonnes of antibiotics are
fed to livestock every year – mostly unmonitored.
In the United States, livestock production consumed 13,000 tonnes of antibiotics in 2009, andaccounts for nearly 80 percent of all the antibiotics used in the country. With resistant bacteria andfood-borne illnesses on the rise, the US Food andDrug Administration recently recommended restricting the application of antibiotics in livestock
production “to those uses that are considered necessary for assuring animal health”. It is doubtful
whether these gently worded, voluntary guidelines can limit the overuse – and the demise – ofantibiotics in the future.
Industrial farming has intensified at a rapid
pace during the past decades and antibiotics havebeen one of the main driving forces behind thisprocess. They perform two functions: they help
animals survive the dismal conditions of livestock
production until slaughter, and they make theanimals grow faster. According to WHO, more
antibiotics are now being fed to healthy animals
rather than to sick human beings. The use of antibiotics as growth promoters is legal in large partsof the world, and until recently, nearly all largescale meat production in developed countries involved the continuous, low-dose administrationof antibiotics in animal feed.
Livestock are usually given the same antibiotics as humans. Every time an antibiotic is administered, there is a chance that bacteria develop
resistance to it. “Superbugs” – pathogens suchas Escherichia coli, salmonella or campylobacter that can infect humans as well – are resistant
to several different antibiotics, and are therefore
particularly difficult to treat. The imprudent useof antibiotics in livestock production exacerbates

How far we are – distribution of antibiotics and resistant bacteria in the USA

lbs

kilograms

29.9

13.6

20

10

for meat and poultry production
to treat ill people
10
7.7

0

26

81
turkeyEWG

Antibiotic-resistant Enterococcus faecalis detected insupermarkets, 2011, percent of all samples

Sales of antibiotics, million pounds/kilograms

69
pork

3.5

beef
2001

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

2010

55

39
chicken

2011

MEAT ATLASEuropean sales of antimicrobial agents for food-producing animals

4
Norway51
antibiotics are used systematically to combat diseases infactory farms

United Kingdom

Ireland

117

Portugal

66
35

43

Estonia

Latvia42

120
PolandLithuania

83
Germany
Czech Rep. 44
79*
54
Slovakia
Switzer- Austria 43
land
192
Slovenia

Belgium

Franceantibiotics used totreat humans are
ineffective against theresistant bacteria

14
Sweden211

175

resistant bacteria can enter
the human body when people
eat meat161

24
FinlandDenmark
Netherlands

49bacteria “defend” themselves
by mutating, thus become
resistant to the antibiotics

114

EMA

6
Iceland

Sales in milligrams per kilogram of meat stock
biomass, 2011, including horses

249

104

Hungary

Bulgaria

370
Spain

408

Italy
* Swiss sales unaudited

the resistance problem. They are usually administered to whole herds of animals in the feed orwater. It is impossible to ensure that every single
animal receives a sufficient dose of the drug. Diagnostic tests are rarely used to check whether theright kind of antibiotic is being used.
Resistant bacteria can pass from animals tohumans in many ways. An obvious link is the foodchain. When the animals are slaughtered andprocessed in an abattoir, the bacteria can colonize
the meat and be carried into consumers’ kitchens.
But that is not the only way that humans can be
exposed to such superbugs. Resistant bacteria canbe blown several hundred metres by exhaust fansof livestock houses. The bacteria are abundantin manure, which is spread on fields as fertilizer.

CyprusOnce in the soil, the bacteria can be washed intorivers and lakes. Bacteria interact both on farms
and in the environment. They develop further
and reproduce, exchanging genetic information.
In doing so, they enlarge the pool of bacteria thatis resistant to once-powerful antibiotics.
The production of animals and meat is
globally connected with trade and transport
links spanning the globe. These links enable
resistant bacteria to spread rapidly. Superbugs are, in the words of the WHO, “notorious
globe-trotters”. The imprudent use of antibiotics in one part of the world thus poses a threat
not only to the local human population, but endangers the health of people in other parts of theworld as well.

Factory farms
are inevitably
breeding dangerous
new strains ofbacteria

How far we are – antibiotic resistance by pathogen and type of meat in Germany
BVL

Percentage of samples. Many pathogens in these groups of bacteria can in humans lead to serious diarrhoea and even death

Number ofclasses of antibiotics to which
pathogens areresistent :4 or more
3
2
1

100

80

Salmonella

Escherichia coli

60

40

Campylobacter jejuni

200turkey meat(retailer)

MEAT ATLAS

turkey(abattoir)

turkey(farm)

broiler chicken(farm)

turkey meat(retailer)

turkey(abattoir)

turkey meat(retailer)

turkey(abattoir)

fattened
calf (farm)

broiler chicken(farm)

Pathogens not
yet resistent:
susceptible

27

WHEN THE TANK IS RUNNING DRY
The growth of the world’s livestock industry will worsen the overuse of rivers andlakes. It’s not that animals are particularly thirsty; but a lot of water is needed to
grow the fodder they eat, and dung from factory farms pollutes the groundwaterwith nitrates and antibiotic residues.

C
2.5 billion
people alreadylive in areas
subject to water
stressonsumption of the world’s most important
form of sustenance – fresh water – has increased eightfold over the past century. It
continues to increase at more than double therate of human population growth. As a result,
one-third of humanity does not have enoughwater, and 1.1 billion people have no access toclean drinking water. Lakes, rivers, and oceans
are pumped full of nutrients and pollutants.
At the same time, the water table is dropping
dramatically in many parts of the world. Big
rivers, such as the Colorado in the United States
and the Yellow River in China, no longer reachthe sea for months because so much of their water
has been extracted. Water consumption continues to rise as the world population grows. Without a limit to consumption, the supply of water
may collapse.
The biggest water user, and the main cause of
the global water crisis, is agriculture. It consumes
70 percent of the world’s available freshwater,while households (10 percent) and industry (20percent) make do with a lot less. One-third of agriculture’s share goes into raising livestock. This is
not because cows, pigs and chickens are especiallythirsty, it is because they consume water indirectly, as feed.
It takes 15,500 litres (15.5 cubic metres) of water to produce just one kilogram of beef, according
to a WWF study. A small swimming pool full of water for four steaks? A surprising amount, until welook at what a cow eats during its lifetime: 1,300
kilograms of grain and 7,200 kilograms of forage.
It takes a lot of water to grow all this fodder. Add
to that 24 cubic metres of drinking water and 7 cubic metres for stall cleaning per animal. The bottom line is that to produce one kilogram of beef,
one needs 6.5 kilograms of grain, 36 kilograms ofroughage, and 15,500 cubic metres of water.
Statistics from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations are just as impressive. Producing 1,000 calories of food in theform of cereals takes about half a cubic metre ofwater. Producing the same number of calories asmeat takes four cubic metres; for dairy products,
6 cubic metres. And these are average figures. Remember though, that not all cows are equal: an
intensively raised cow uses a lot more water than
one that is put outside to graze. And around theworld, more and more animals are being kept indoors rather than outside.
The effect of livestock on water is not limited toconsumption. Water pollution caused by nitrates
and phosphorus from manure and fertilizers area big problem for the livestock industry. In many
areas, over-fertilization is a bigger problem thana lack of fertilizer. Plants cannot absorb the nutrients that percolate down into the soil, and end
up in groundwater as well as in rivers and lakes.
Nitrates in groundwater often end up in wells
and springs. If the authorities check nitrate levels,
people can avoid drinking it, but such checks do

HOEKSTRA/MEKONNEN

Moisture extraction for food, fodder and fibre production

Millimetres per year
0–10
10–100100–500> 500

28

MEAT ATLASHOEKSTRA/MEKONNEN

Water used for meat production in G20 countries

2,000

Most important developed and developing countries,
cubic metres used per person per year
1,500

1,000

It takes this much water to produce 1 kilogram or 1 litre of:beef

15,455 L

cheese5,000 L

rice
3,400 L

eggs

3,300 L

sugar

1,500 L

wheat

1,300 Lmilk

1,000 Lapples

700 L

beer

300 L

potatoes

255 L

tomatoes

184 L

carrots

131 L

1 bathtub contains about
140 litres of water

WATERFOOTPRINT.ORG

NIPPON HAM

world average

USA

Australia

Virtual water

56.8

livestock breeding
facilities and feedlots
other

Italy

BrazilCanadaMEAT ATLAS

Saudi Arabia

food plants
fresh meat
processing plants

Mexico32

Russia

1.5
9.7

FranceWater use by Nippon Ham, the world’s 6th-largest
meat company, 2011, 100 percent = 12.5 million m3

TurkeyA thirsty industry

Argentina

not take place in many areas. Further problems
include contamination by antibiotics from thelarge amounts of drugs used in factory farms, andthe lowering of the water table in much of Asia because of pumping from wells. Dry wells have to be
deepened, and they may tap into rocks that havea high content of fluoride and arsenic; substancesthat can harm both people and animals.
If meat consumption continues to rise rapidly,
the amount of water needed to grow animal feed
will double by the middle of this century, according to the Worldwatch Institute. Human population growth alone means we have to find ways to
use water more economically, because the sameamount of water will have to go around for more
people. Global warming through climate change
is likely to reduce water availability further. It
is questionable whether we should continue topump an ever scarcer resource into the raisingof livestock . Some 2.5 billion people already live
in areas subject to water stress; by 2025, it will beover half of humanity, and conflicts over water are
expected to become more acute.

South Africa

Indonesia

GermanyJapan

United Kingdom

India

0

China

South Korea

500

29

THE GRAIN IN THE FEED TROUGH
Ruminants and people do not have to compete over food. But producing moremeat requires ever more grain to feed to animals as concentrates. If we cannot
grow enough at home, we have to import it from abroad.

Rcent soybean, depending on how old the pigs are.
Averaged over all livestock species, only about 40
percent of feed comes from grass, hay and silage
made from grass or maize.
In Europe, the United States, as well as in Mexico, other parts of Latin America and even in countries like Egypt, cattle are no longer fed just on
grass. They also eat maize, wheat and soybeans. It
would be much more efficient to use these crops
directly as food for people. While there are big differences from region to region, worldwide 57 percent of the output of barley, rye, millet, oats andmaize are fed to animals.
Even in the United States, where a lot of maizegoes into making ethanol, 44 percent ends up in
feeding troughs. In the EU, 45 percent of wheat
is used this way. In Africa, especially south of the
Sahara, where the risk of hunger is highest, such
numbers are unthinkable. There, people eat 80

uminants and people do not have to compete over food. But producing more meat requires ever more grain to feed to animals as
concentrates. If we cannot grow enough at home,
we have to import it from abroad. Grass, silage andhay are low in energy, so to get more out of ourA third of theanimals, we feed them with a large amount ofworld’s cultivatedconcentrates: soy, maize (“corn” in the UnitedStates) and other cereals. These contain proland is used to growtein
to improve their fertility and growth, dea billion tonnes
velop their muscles and boost milk production.
of feedBut they are low in fibre and lead to more acidproduction in the animals’ rumens. We put additives into the feed to compensate.
So what do our farm animals eat? The Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) says that between 20 and 30 percent
of cattle feed can consist of concentrates. A pig
trough may contain anything from 6 to 25 per-Virtual trade in land used to grow soybeans for the European Union
WWF

In million hectares, 2008–10 net average

North America-1.6
Oceania

Asia

Commonwealthof Independent
States

0.0

-2

-0.2
South America
+0.2

other
-0.1

Middle East/
North Africa

Paraguay-0.9
Argentina

16

14

Brazil
12

-12.8

-5.4

Total land outside EU used for soybeans, million hectares

-6.4

+0.1

10

Sub-SaharanAfrica

8

0

30

2001

2005

2010

MEAT ATLAS

Grassland and scrubland converted to cropland and pasture
Percentage of natural inventory converted tocroplandFAO

percent of the cereal harvest; animals eat what
they find on pastureland.
On a global scale, more than 40 percent of
the annual output of wheat, rye, oats and maizegoes into animal feed. That is nearly 800 million
tonnes. Add to that another 250 million tonnes ofoilseeds, mainly soybeans. In many regions theseare grown in mass monocultures and exported
worldwide. Soybeans could be replaced by native
legumes such as beans, peas or lucerne which also
fix nitrogen from the air and return this valuable
plant nutrient to the soil. But these crops only account for about 20 percent of the protein used in
feed in the European Union.
Overall, nearly one-third of the world’s 14 billion hectares of cultivated land is used to growanimal feed. If we also count the crop by-productsthat also go into feed, such as straw and seedcakefrom soybeans, rape or grapes, three-quartersof all cropland is used to produce animal feed insome way. And a major study conducted by theUnited Nations on agricultural development estimates that livestock production accounts for 70
percent of all agricultural land.
Feed production has become separated fromanimal raising. Crops intended for feed are now
transported long distances, often across oceans,
to reach the animals. That has consequences: a lotof livestock raisers cannot dispose of the manure
nearby in a safe, environmentally friendly manner. They have to ship it somewhere else to be
spread on the fields. Meanwhile, the farmers whogrow the feed have to use large amounts of artificial fertilizers and pesticides to get a decent crop.
In addition, grain yields have stopped rising in some places. According to a study by the
University of Minnesota, yields in one-quarter to
one-third of the producing areas are stagnating– including in Australia, Argentina, Guatemala,Morocco, Kenya and the US states of Arkansas andTexas. In parts of the UK, in areas that produced
the highest outputs 20 years ago, yields have actually decreased. For wheat and rapeseed, British researchers suspect that this is due to the soil

pastureSouth
America
North
America
Pacific(developed)
EuropeAsia(incl. former
Soviet Union)
Africa
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

previously grassland or savannah

2

4

6

8

10

12

previously scrublanddamage caused by the use of heavy machinery. As
a result, there is a continued long-term decline inorganic matter content in British soils.
On a global scale, stagnating yields affectfour major grain types that produce two-thirdsof the calories: maize, rice, wheat and soybeans.
Yields of these four crops are growing by only
0.9 to 1.6 percent a year. The authors of theMinnesota study think this is because efforts
have gone into producing livestock feed andbiofuel crops. They argue that more efficientuse of current arable land and better management regimes across the globe might assuage
the problem, but further expansion of cropland
would bring big environmental costs in the formof biodiversity loss and higher carbon emissions.
Deepak Ray, one of the study’s authors, has another suggestion: “Perhaps most controversially, we
can change to more plant-based diets.”

Expandingcropland further
would cause moredamage to theenvironment

Land for lunch
WWF

Area of land needed to produce a typical meat dish, in m2/person
3.61
3.38

3.12

2.26

2.23

total area neededneeded for meatcomponent
needed for soy

1.96
1.36
0.76

0.66

0.38

0.35

0.11
roast pork

MEAT ATLAS

hamburger

chicken currygrilled sausage

31

THE EMERGENCE OF A LATIN
AMERICAN SOY EMPIRE
In Argentina, the world boom in soy prices has given rise to a new breedof farmers, along with a huge increase in tax revenues for the government. The
structural changes in farming have led to serious social and ecological effects.

T
The moresoy, the moreherbicide spray –cancer rates aregoing uphe new Argentinian farmer operates like aninternational manager. From his air-conditioned office he follows the price of soy inglobal commodities markets, and organizes his
production using his laptop and mobile phone. He
has delegated the tasks of buying seeds, sowing,
the application of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, as well as harvesting and transport to specialized service providers. The fact that he canget some of these services from a single provider is very convenient. International firms
offer seed, a complete package of chemicals,
and increasingly the marketing too. The steadyhigh price of soy makes this kind of hands-off
farming profitable even for medium-sized farms
of around 100 hectares. The landowner calculates
the costs of outsourcing at about 340 dollars a hectare, and can expect to harvest between 2.5 and4 tonnes of soybeans, depending on the weather.
A “low” price of 300 dollars a tonne still yields between 485 and 980 dollars per hectare, or a profitof 50,000 to 100,000 dollars a year for a 100-hectare farm. Even after paying a special agricultural
tax of 40 percent, and land and income taxes, theowner still has enough left over to avoid having to
get his own hands dirty.
This farm enterprise model has become common over the last 10 years. The pioneers were in-vestors who joined together as “sowing pools” torent land from the state or from big landowners
to grow soybeans on a large scale. These investors
often operate from a few offices in the capital, Buenos Aires. And they create several types of problems. Because they operate on a larger scale andharvest more, they can afford to pay higher rents
than small and medium producers, thus encouraging the depopulation of rural areas. Additionally, their corporate governance structure enables
them to avoid taxes.
Up to 40 percent of Argentina’s soybean fields
are being managed by sowing pools. In 2012, they
paid the equivalent of 1.6 to 2.5 tonnes of soybean
per hectare for rent – or 594 to 825 dollars annualized. This makes large-scale monoculturesthat cover tens of thousands of hectares possible,
blighting entire landscapes. Medium-sized sowing pools manage between 15,000 and 30,000 hectares, while big ones can work 100,000 hectares
or more. Between 2008 and 2012, sowing pools
reckoned on a profit of 16 to 21 percent per year –and in some cases significantly more. To even out
the risk of bad weather, they rent land in different
parts of the country. Since 2012, new rules governing transactions have come into force and theirprofits have fallen to 3.6 to 5 percent (measured
in dollars). Some sowing pools are now expanding

Key figures of Argentina’s soy economy

soy crop,
million hectares

soy production,
million tonnes

25

soy consumption and exports,
million tonnes, 2013 forecast

50

52
20

40

30

10

33

20

20

9
5

10

4
0

32

1988

2000

2012

0

10
9

19
15

52

10
1988

2000

2012

2

MEAT ATLASThe centre of soy power
INDEC

Exports by province inArgentina, revenues 2010
million dollars
dollars per person
340
150
Chaco 150

300
Santiagodel Estero

2,900
3,600
Córdoba
320
1,090

9,300
Santa Fe

400
Entre Ríos

Buenos Aires

150
310
2,300
Buenos Aires
province

100
La Pampa

share of exports from
Argentina, percent, 2012

share of world soybean
exports, percent, 2012

share of soy export
taxes, percent, 2011

unprocessed to China

USDA, FAOSTAT, INDEC

into Paraguay, Brazil and Uruguay, or are negotiating new leasing agreements in Argentina.
Most pools no longer plough the land, but
sow the seed directly into the ground. This “direct
seeding” arguably conserves the water and soil
and saves time, making it possible to fit in a second or even a third crop in a year. The first harvest
can yield from 2.5 to 3 tonnes a hectare; the second and third, less. But multiple harvests require
repeated sprayings with herbicides, particularly
glyphosate, to get rid of weeds. Only geneticallymodified soy tolerates glyphosate; the result isthat these varieties are sown over huge areas withall the subsequent social and environmental impacts.
Small farmers in particular are victims of thesoy boom. Between 1988 and 2008, the numberof farms fell from 421,000 to 270,000. Now, 2 percent of the farm enterprises control more than
50 percent of the area; small enterprises, making
up 57 percent of the total, manage just 3 percentof the land. Because of the high price of land in
the central region, many large firms are moving
to peripheral areas of the country and are buying cheap land from the state. Again and again,
small landholders and tenant farmers are being
brutally evicted from their land. Armed conflicts
are multiplying. Lucrative soy, along with maize,
is forcing cattle breeding into more remote areas and into forested areas in Argentina and Paraguay, adding to the pressure on indigenous communities there.
Since 1990, soybean acreage has quadrupled,
and in some regions, the use of herbicides has
risen elevenfold. The effects are dramatic. In rural areas, such as in villages and small towns, thenumber of miscarriages and birth defects has increased. While on average, 19 percent of deathsin Argentina are caused by cancer, in these areas
it exceeds 30 percent.

Argentina

biodiesel and others
22

soy

6
24

soy taxes

3
feed
35

beef and poultry

all government revenues
rest of world

stock

MEAT ATLAS

33

THE CLIMATE COST OF CATTLE
Livestock directly or indirectly produce nearly one-third of the world’s
greenhouse gas emissions. But farmers and scientists say that with the righttype of management, livestock do not have to be a burden on the climate.

L

ivestock raisers are not just victims of climatechange; they also contribute to it. Depending
on how you count, livestock are responsiblefor 6 to 32 percent of greenhouse gases. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO), it’s 14.5 percent. The big
difference in these estimates depends on the basisof measurement: should it only be based on the direct emissions from livestock, or should the total
Feedingemissions due to feed production, the producruminants withtion of fertilizer and pesticides, ploughing, forgrass and garlic may
est clearance to grow soybeans, and the draincut methane
age of peatlands also be included?
The production and use of feed is often
emissions
not included in the carbon-dioxide footprint ofmeat or livestock products such as eggs, milk andbutter. But environment scientists say that thesefootprints should include all the emissions created during the life cycle of a particular product,from production to use and disposal. The production and use of mineral and organic fertilizers is
responsible for more than one-third of all greenhouse gases from livestock production. The biggest culprit is nitrous oxide, or N2O, commonly
known as laughing gas, a greenhouse gas 300
times more potent than carbon dioxide. If farmers apply too much mineral fertilizer, manure or
slurry, or use it at the wrong time, plants cannot
absorb the nutrients and the gas ends up in the atmosphere or is converted into nitrates that pollute
groundwater. The Swiss Research Institute of Or-

Emissions from meat production in the USA

40

Kilograms of CO2 equivalent per kilogram of consumable meat8

39.2

production
processing, transport,
trade, preparation,
waste disposal

35
30

27.0

25

EWG

Kilograms of C02 equivalent per kilogram of meat

7

5
4

15

3

13.5

34

10.9

lamb

beef cheese pigmeat turkey chicken

4.8
eggs

1
0

CH4 methane
N20 nitrous oxide, laughing gas

fodder production
4.67
N20(manure)transport ofadditional ingredients

2

6.9

5
0

12.1

beef
poultry

7.51

6

20

10

CH4 (digestion)

EWG

Emissions due to animal products consumed in the USA

ganic Agriculture (FiBL) has determined that the
production of the world’s annual output of 125
million tonnes of nitrogen fertilizers releases 800
million tonnes of carbon dioxide. This amounts to
2 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
High demand for animal feed – especiallysoybeans – is pushing the expansion of agricultural production. Rainforest and scrubland areoften cleared for cultivation. FAO says that in
Brazil alone, nearly 7.7 kilograms of greenhousegases are released for every kilogram of soybeansgrown. Another chunk of emissions that is seldom
considered emerges from changes in land use.
When grassland is ploughed, the humus decomposes and releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide. One tonne of humus binds 3.7 tonnes of thegas – and 35 percent of that disappears into the
air when the soil is turned over. Another 4 percent
of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to agriculture occur when farmers plough drained peatsoils. This is the most climate-damaging type offarming: 40 tonnes of carbon dioxide can be released per hectare every year from organic matterthat has built up in swamps over centuries.
But livestock raising does not have to be thisharmful to the climate. Keeping animals on pasture is worthwhile: turning cultivated fields into
meadows binds the highest amounts of carbon
dioxide in the first 30–40 years. These meadowsshould not be overfertilized by too many animals
or with large amounts of chemical fertilizer, and

1.26

1.75
0.28

energyCH4(manure) 0.23
0.26
0.55 0.59

1.64

MEAT ATLAS

What you don’t see on your plate: greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock supply chains
FAO

By animal products, in billion tonnes equivalent carbon dioxide
manure for non-feed crops,
1.4 million tonnes nitrogenpost-farm transportand processing

livestockproductionslaughter by-products

0.2

draft, fibre andmanure used as fuel

0.4

beef

3.5

2.9

7.0
cattle milk
sheep and goats
feed
production

3.3

0.4
buffalo milk and meat

0.6
pigmeatchicken meatchicken eggs

non-feed products

the plant root systems should be allowed to develop undisturbed. Cattle do indeed belch methane:beef and dairy farmers are often blamed because
their animals produce 28 percent of this particularly climate-damaging gas. But nearly all this gas
can be bound in the soil if the cattle are grazed on
pasture. And these animals should not be given
cereals or soybeans as supplemental feed. A cow
fed this way does not produce as much meat per
hectare as one fed on concentrates, but the costto the environment in terms of greenhouse gas
emissions is much lower.

1.4

0.7
0.4
0.2

Teams of scientists are trying to find ways toreduce livestock’s impact on the climate. The
French research company Valorex has replaced
the common diet of maize and soy-based concentrates with one composed of lucerne (alfalfa),
linseed and grass. The result was a 20 percent
decrease in the methane content of the bovine
burps. And scientists of the Aberystwyth University in Wales think they can halve the methane
emissions of cows by mixing garlic into the feed:
it attacks the microorganisms in the gut that produce methane.

A cocktail of gases: Climate change from field and stall
FAO

By category of emission, percent

beef

cow milk

manure, applied and deposited, N2O
fertilizer and crop residues, N2O
feed, CO2

MEAT ATLAS

poultrypigs

land use change: soybean, CO2
land use change: pasture
expansion, CO2

eggs

digestion, CH4
manure management, CH4
manure management, N2O

direct and indirectenergy, CO2
post-farm, CO2

35

RANCHERS IN THE RAINFOREST
In Brazil’s Amazon region, the world’s second-largest herd of cattle meetsthe world’s biggest rainforest. This is bad news for the forest. First come theloggers, then come the ranchers.

Brazil has a population of 201 million people,
but even more cattle: 211.3 million, according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography
and Statistics (IBGE) at the end of 2012. That issecond only to India’s national herd. Animal numbers fell a little from 2011 because of rising fodder
costs, but were still 9 million higher than in 2008.
The area needed to keep all these animals is huge:more than 172 million hectares, or 70 percent ofBrazil’s agricultural land.
According to a study by the National Institute
Brazilfor Space Research (INPE) using satellite imagesupports big
ry, 62.2 percent of the deforested land is used
herds, high-yielding
as pasture for cattle. Another 21 percent is not
pastures andused and is covered by secondary regrowth.
Only 4.9 percent is cultivated. This means that
hormone use
the world’s biggest rainforest is ending up being
destroyed mainly to feed cattle. Despite recent
declines in the rate of deforestation, cattle raising
still puts a lot of pressure on the rainforest. The
number of cattle in northern Brazil – mostly the
Amazon – has now reached over 40 million animals. Between 1975 and 2006, pastureland there
increased by 518 percent.
This expansion has many causes. Raising cattle
is profitable even in remote areas with little infrastructure. The costs of chopping down the trees
and converting the land to pasture can be cov-

ered by selling the timber. The low costs of investment make this land ideal for illegal, sometimes
short-term use. According to Brazil’s strict forest
laws, most of the deforestation is unlawful or isin a grey legal zone. The intensification of farming elsewhere in Brazil, caused by the expanding
cultivation of soy for feed and sugarcane to makeethanol, reinforces the destructive pressure on therainforest.
Things have to change in the process of land
conversion. In fact, some news is encouraging. The
average rate of deforestation used to be around
20,000 square kilometres a year; that has dropped
significantly. In 2012, “only” 4,700 square kilometres were cleared. The government has expanded
the protected areas and strengthened controls
over forest clearing. Beef produced in Brazil does
not have to come from the Amazon. Domestic andinternational consumers could request meat thatis produced in parts of the country that have notbeen deforested in order to raise livestock. Brazil’s economic difficulties mean that domestic demand for beef is weak. The government supports
prices and pays subsidies for larger herds andhigh-yielding pastures. Export earnings are risingby about 20 percent a year. The biggest customer
is Russia, which takes about one-third of total exports. Hong Kong’s share has doubled in just one

Oxygen for all: the vital role of the greenwood
MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT

Carbon dioxide storage in billion tonnes, estimates
1990
2000
2010
42 43 45
Europe37 37 36
Asia
60 58 56

38 39 40
North and Central America

Africa11 11 10
Oceania

110 106 102
South America

massive deforestation
forest area stableslight increases in forest land

36

MEAT ATLASSpots on the world’s lungs
FAO

Rainforest losses from clearance and grazing

More than
60 percent of thedeforested land isdevoted to cattle
raisingCattle per km2
0
1–300
> 300
historic limits of
the rainforest

MEAT ATLASThe US Department of Agriculture expects another 5 million cattle to be grazing on Brazilian
pastures in 2014. The pressure on the rainforest
remains high. Supported by satellite data, environmental protection groups have noted a significant increase in forest clearing in 2013.

Forest clearances: lower, but still too highAnnual loss of forest in the Brazilian Amazon, in km2

INPE

year to 20 percent. This is due to an import ban
China imposed after a case of mad cow disease in asouthern Brazilian state. Much of this trade is now
diverted via Hong Kong. Its higher imports havealso more than compensated for a long-runningban on imports imposed by Saudi Arabia.
Brazil has a special quota for imports of highquality beef into the European Union, but it cannot supply even one-third of the volume permitted. Exporters prefer to supply Asia and North
America instead. And the European Commission
and Russia were watchful when the Brazilian government permitted the use of ractopamine on cattle in 2012. This growth hormone is already being
used on pigs in Brazil, and as a consequence, theirmeat may not be imported into the EU, Russia or
China. However, other markets remain attractive :27 countries, including the United States, Canada,South Africa, South Korea and Japan, permit imports. Brazil says that it will export only beef raised
without the use of ractopamine to countries thatban the hormone.

30,00025,00020,00015,00010,000
5,000
0

1990

1992

1994

1986

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

37

THE GLYPHOSATE IN YOUR BURGER
If pesticides, herbicides or medicines leave unwanted residues in meat, milk andeggs, we end up consuming them too. Gaps in research leave uncertainty about
what glyphosate – a weedkiller used when growing genetically modified soybeans –does to our bodies. Legal loopholes mean we may be eating it without knowing it.

T
Producers,
local residents
and consumers are
all exposed toherbicides

he mass production of animals in the European Union depends largely on feedingthem with soybeans, and especially genetically modified (GM) soy. The only “positive” effectof the genetic modification is that it makes thesoy plant resistant to glyphosate. This is a broadspectrum herbicide used to kill any plant on thefield unless the plant is genetically modified totolerate it.
Glyphosate is the world’s best-sellingchemical herbicide. It was patented by the US
company Monsanto in the 1970s, and marketed under the brand name Roundup. Monsanto,
the world’s largest seed producer, produces morethan half of the world’s glyphosate. In 2011, thissubstance accounted for 27 percent of the company’s total net sales. With the expiry of the patent
outside the United States in 1991 and in the European Union in 2000, Monsanto had to develop a
new strategy to defend its market share against
competing chemical companies, including BASF,
Syngenta and Bayer, that produce their own
glyphosate-containing herbicides. Monsanto introduced “Roundup Ready” crops that were genetically modified – and resistant to glyphosate.
Promising an easy-to-handle weed-control program, Monsanto encourages farmers who growRoundup Ready soy, maize and sugar beet to buy
the company’s corresponding herbicide.
Glyphosate-resistant soybeans are the world’s
best-selling GM crops. Currently about 85 percentof the worldwide cultivated GM crops are herbicide-resistant, and the vast majority are Monsanto’s Roundup Ready varieties. In 2012, nearly halfof all GM crops grown worldwide were Roundup
Ready soybeans. Cultivated in South and North
America on approximately 85 million hectares,
and exported mainly to China and the European
Union, glyphosate-resistant soybeans are used tofeed poultry, pigs and cattle in intensive livestock
production. A loophole in the EU’s GM labellinglaws allows meat, dairy and eggs produced with
GM animal feed to be sold without a GM label.
Why should meat eaters worry? Because
glyphosate residues might be present at low
levels in animal products that people consume,and because there are growing doubts about thehealth safety of glyphosate. The problem is thatglyphosate is a systemic herbicide. This meansthat it moves throughout the plant into the leaves,grains or fruit. It cannot be removed by washing,and it is not broken down by cooking. Glyphosate
residues remain stable in food and feed for a year
or more, even if it is frozen, dried or processed.
This means that livestock fed with GM soy eat
huge amounts of glyphosate residues. Industry
studies show that when animals are fed glyphosate at levels allowed in feed, residues may be present at low levels in their milk and eggs, as well as
in the liver and kidneys. The European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA) is planning to examine the issue
of glyphosate residues in animal products. These

Glyphosate – a sudden acceleration

100

2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993

90
80
70

soybeans
maize

60

maize
soybeansothers

50
40
30
20

25
0

38

Glyphosate-resistant crops in the USA,on percent of cultivated land

USDA ERS

Use by year and crop in the USA,million pounds/kilograms,

50

50
100

75
150

100
200

10
kilograms
pounds01996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

MEAT ATLAS

Acceptance and rejection of genetically modified crops
FAO, centerforfoodsafety.org

Area planted to GM crops, by country
million hectares
over 93–9
1–3
0.01–10

Rules for genetically modified(GM) food (not animal feed)bannedLabelling required:include meat, because considering the wide useof glyphosate on feed crops, “a significant livestock exposure to glyphosate […] might be expected, resulting in a carry-over of residues in the foodof animal origin”, EFSA announced.
The US Environmental Protection Agency increased the legal limit for glyphosate residues
in soybeans from 0.1 milligrams/kilogram to 20
milligrams/kilogram in 1996. This subsequently
became the international maximum residue level. This change was made in the year the first GM
crops were grown. Evidence suggests that one
percent of the glyphosate remains in the bodya week after exposure. Because glyphosate is so
widely used, most people are exposed to it on aregular basis. But “real life” exposure to glyphosate, meaning long-term uptake in low doses, has
never been investigated. And up to now there has
been no official testing in the EU of glyphosate
residues in imported GM soybeans.
Applying glyphosate can cause problems forother reasons too. In some parts of the world it issprayed on large fields. This does not take into account any other crops or vegetation around thesoybean fields. As a result, the local biodiversity
sinks dramatically. In addition, the chemical cansink into the groundwater. People living nearby
or who happen to be in the area are repeatedly exposed to the spray.
This can have serious consequences. There isevidence that glyphosate affects the human hormone system, which can cause irreversible effects
at particular life stages, such as during pregnancy. Also, glyphosate-containing herbicides have
MEAT ATLAS

for many products. Labelling not needed if
GM material accounts for up to 1 percent of
the complete productfor a few products, with many exceptions

GM crops banned in European countries

been shown to be “genotoxic”, meaning they interfere with a cell’s ability to accurately copy DNA
and reproduce, leading to potential genetic mutations and a bigger risk of cancer. In Ecuador andColombia, where glyphosate herbicides havebeen used to control cocaine production, studies have found genetic damage and increased
rates of miscarriage during the spraying period. In the soy-growing Chaco district of Argentina, cancer rates have increased threefold in
the last decade. In all soy-growing areas of SouthAmerica, there have been reports of increases inbirth defects. One study in Paraguay found thatthe babies of women living within 1 kilometre offields sprayed with glyphosate were more than
twice as likely to have birth defects.

As farmers
apply morechemicals, officials
raise the limits
permitted

Pesticides use in Argentina
Million kilograms sold, mostly containing glyphosates

REDUAS/CASAFE

all plant products have to be labelled, exception:
if a contamination up to 0.9 percent is“adventitious and technically unavoidable”.
Products derived from animals fed with GMOs:
no labelling (eggs, meat, milk).

2013
2009
2005
2001
1997

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

39

A PLETHORA OF POULTRY:CHICKENS TAKE THE LEAD
In developed countries, consumption of chicken is surpassing that of beef,
and chicken production is now highly industrialized. Demand in Asia is rising
fast, and people who refuse pork and beef are happy to eat chicken.

Industrial poultry production is the fastest growing and most quickly changing segment of ahighly globalized livestock industry. By 2020,
124 million tonnes of poultry will be produced
globally – an increase of 25 percent in just 10
years. China’s production increase will be largest,
a 37 percent increase compared to 2010; but Brazil(28 percent) will be close behind. Below-average

Poultry raised in intensive systems
FAO

Numbers and proportions, 2005/2010*
total number ofpoultry (billions)of which inintensive systems(billions)percentage in
intensive systems,
region/country

7.3

5.8

79

5.3

4.7

90

percentage in
intensive
systems, global
46

38

East Asia and Pacific, of which China
5
1.2

48

0.6

Eastern Europe and Central Asia
12
2.3

1.5

64

Latin America and Caribbean
5
1.0

0.6

57

Middle East and North Africa
1.1
0.8

0.3
30
0.1
16
South Asia, of which India

3

29

2

0.9

0.3
Sub-Saharan Africa

4.0

3.5

1

28
86

high-income countries* country classification as of 2010, data 2005, more recent not available

40

growth is forecast for the USA (16 percent) and theEU (4 percent). The most dramatic change in demand for poultry meat, however, will take placein South Asia, where it is expected to rise morethan sevenfold by 2050. This huge increase is due
mainly to the growth in demand in India, where
consumption is expected to rise nearly tenfold,from 1.05 to 9.92 million tonnes a year. According
to the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, this is due to rising per capita consumption rather than the growing human population. Most growth in demand comes from urban
areas and double that in rural regions.
Why do people prefer chicken to other types ofmeat? One reason is the price. Producing poultry
is cheaper than other types of meat. Even thoughcost of poultry production will rise as a result of
more expensive feed, chickens are more efficient
feed converters than other livestock. Unlike beef
and pork, there are few religious or cultural limitations to eating chicken. Plus, meat consumption
is expected to rise in countries where people culturally prefer eating poultry.
Poultry production will change as a result.
Large numbers of chickens are currently raisedon a small scale in backyards. We can expect thesesmall production units to be displaced by larger
ones. Feed will be produced in different areas,and production will become more concentrated.
There will be fewer live-bird markets and traders
on bicycles. The numerous small slaughter locations and retailers will be replaced by fewer, butlarger slaughterhouses and retail outlets.
China’s poultry production is industrializing
rapidly, with 70 percent of it relegated to broilers and spent hens. The expansion of supermarkets and fast-food outlets, such as McDonalds
and Kentucky Fried Chicken have helped to drive
demand and hasten a shift to large-scale production. Millions of small poultry producers have disappeared: between 1985 and 2005, 70 million left
the sector. Small farms are becoming less important. In 1998, farms with fewer than 2,000 birds
produced 62 percent of the country’s chickens;in 2009, these farms produced only 30 percent.
Meanwhile, the share of huge farms with an annual output of over 100 million birds rose from 2
percent in 1998 and to over 6 percent in 2009.
Such big flocks are difficult to manage with regard to food safety. Many industrial-scale producMEAT ATLAS

Estimated chicken consumption
per person, 2012, in kilograms, 50.1
dressed carcass weight

25.3
36.5
Russia

23.6

19.1

14.0

Canada31.0

DSW, FAO

Chickens on plates

EU-27

USA

16.9

China

Japan

South Korea
2.4
Mexico

India

38.5

50.5
7.3

37.8
38.6

Indonesia

BrazilAustralia

South Africa
Argentina

MEAT ATLAS

tected in 1996 in farmed geese in southern China,
this disease has since spread to 60 countries. Since
2004, China has reported avian flu outbreaks every year except 2011.
However, China’s trend mimics worldwide
trends. Poultry production, markets and processing facilities in countries expanding this
sector are increasingly become integrated
into market chains, with control in the handsof fewer and larger companies. These trends
will affect everyone who currently makes aliving from poultry. It will especially influence
women, who currently keep most of the world’s
backyard chickens and it will affect the quality ofthe poultry consumers eat.

20 billion
chickens: they
are the world’s mostnumerous bird
speciesA growing flock
Billion birds
chickens
ducks

FAO

ers mix antibiotics and other additives into thefeed in order to prevent diseases from spreading,and to make the birds grow faster. Though China
has a long list of banned feed additives (many ofwhich are used in the United States ), monitoringand implementation remains poor. In December
2012, Chinese national television exposed the“instant chicken” scandal associated with Liuhe.
One of the country’s top chicken producers, Liuhe is a subsidiary of New Hope, the biggest feed
company in China and one of the largest in theworld. As many as 18 antibiotics were found in“cocktails” mixed into the feed to accelerate thegrowth of broilers. These birds could grow from30 grams to 2.5 kilograms in a matter of 40 days.
Liuhe is one of KFC’s major suppliers. As a result of
the scandal, Yum Brands (KFC’s parent company)
was forced to admit that excessive drug residues
had been found in “some” poultry supplied by Liuhe in 2010.
The scandal caused widespread outrage in
the Chinese media, and KFC’s sales plunged. KFC
responded by exerting even more control overits supply chain. It announced that it would shift
towards a “grow out” system. In this model, there
are no independent small producers or contract
farmers that are typical of the vertically integrated poultry industry. Rather, the meat-processing
company owns all the inputs, controls the land
and water resources, and employs the workers
who produce the chickens, essentially turning
farms into factories.
Instead of moving away from an industrial
model, China is further intensifying its poultry
production as a response to overcome food safetyissues, despite the emergence of avian flu. First de-geese and guinea fowl
turkeys

20

15

10

5

0
2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

41

WHERE KEEPING CHICKENSIS WOMEN‘S WORK
Many women in Africa and Asia are forced to be dependent on their husbands
for big decisions. A few hens, chicks and eggs can build their confidence andself-reliance. Their contribution to the meat supply is often underestimated.

T

The value of
their meat meansthat chickens act
as a savings bankwith wings

he global large-scale meat industry has some
impressive figures on production and trade.
But we should not neglect small-scale local
producers. In developing countries, a sizeable
proportion of meat output comes from traditional
forms of livestock raising. This is especially true
for poultry, much of which is raised by small-scale
producers. Families often keep a few free-range
chickens in their backyards. Systematic research
has revealed how much meat is actually producedin this way: in Bangladesh, 98 percent of chicken
meat and eggs come from small-scale producers;in Ethiopia it is 99 percent. In Nigeria, the mostpopulous country in Africa, it was 94 percent before imports from the European Union took off.
In southern Africa, 85 percent of all households keep chickens, and 70 percent of thechickens belong to women. In countries where
women are traditionally disadvantaged, chicken-keeping is especially important as a sourceof income. In many countries women still are notallowed to own land in their own names, or evenjointly with their husbands. They often work intheir husbands’ fields; if they have a plot of theirown, it may be just big enough for a vegetable garden. The men get the income from the rest of theland, and can spend it as they want.
In traditional societies, that means that women are economically dependent on the men.
Small-scale chicken-raising is their job. Chickens
are undemanding. At best, they look for theirown feed, and they require very little investment.
Looking after the birds is something that children
can do, and women can combine chicken raising with their other tasks. They can use the small
amounts of income they get from selling eggs ormeat to cover daily expenses, such as school exer-

cise books, medicines and salt. The birds are a formof savings on legs. They can be sold or slaughteredfor celebrations and funerals, to make larger purchases, or for an emergency.
For women, the social benefits of chickenraising can be just as important as the economic
advantages. In a survey by the Cameroonian social researcher Tilder Kumichi, Margret Vikuwi,
from northeastern Cameroon, related how she
had benefited from her small chicken enterprise.
Ms.Vikuwi always has a reserve to deal with an
emergency, and she is not totally dependent on
the housekeeping money her husband gives her.
Selling chickens to friends, neighbours and customers in the market is stimulating, and she is constantly enlarging her circle of acquaintances. She
feels that she is becoming more independent because of her chickens, and she now has more freedom than before. Raising other types of animals
gives women similar advantages, especially withgoats and small stock, such as rabbits and guinea
pigs. Beef cattle normally belong to the men, who
tend to be responsible for looking after them. Bothmen and women may own dairy cows. Regardlessof who owns the cows, it is normally the women
who take care of them and who get the income
from the meat when they are slaughtered.
If women are successful at raising animals,
they can build up their stocks. They may be able toget a loan from a self-help group or microfinanceinstitution, and become independent. They canpurchase more animals, invest in a stall or shed,
and learn about hygiene and feeding. These activities are time-consuming, therefore they needto employ other people. If business is good and thelegal situation permits, they can buy some landand set up their own enterprise.

When women own livestock, diets improvemonths of adequate provisioning, per year and livestock species, Eastern and Southern Africa

cattlegoats

42households where women own the species

households
140
98
156
114

MEAT ATLAS

Between a lack of rights and market dominanceDistribution of labour, decision-making and ownership of chickens in four
regions of Africa and Asia, by gender and family relationships, in percent
11

wholesaler
retailer

36
89
100

decision-making

100

64assembler

poultry sales

80

Northern provinces of Vietnam

60
40
20
0

sale of eggs

Khulna District, Bangladesh

consumption of
eggs

70

100

task allocation in chicken-raising

60

80

50

task allocation in chicken-raising

60

40

40

30

20

20

0

feeding

100

shedbuilding

shedcleaning

feeding

wateringsale ofchickenssale ofeggs

overnight
confinement

treatment

health care

Rural households in Western Division, Gambia

13
7
53

8

18
27
ownership of chickens
Rural households in Dodoma, Tanzania

974
ownership of chickens

15buying and selling of chickens

FAO

76

women
men
childrenfamilywomen and children
women and men

exotic chickens

local chickens

MEAT ATLAS

98 number of meals including this meat

ILRI

where women do not own the species

208
166
125
109

43

IMPORTED CHICKEN WINGS DESTROY
WEST AFRICAN BUSINESSES
European poultry firms are not permitted to turn slaughter by-products into
animal feed. So they export them to developing countries and sell them cheap.
Broiler farms in Ghana and Benin have gone bankrupt.

F
Chickenunsellable inEurope is smuggled
half-thawed
into Nigeria

or most people in developing countries, eating meat is a luxury. A kilogram of meat cancost from 3 to 7 Euro in the local markets –several days’ wages. Nevertheless, meat consumption is rising among the urban middle classes. For
those who are better-off, eating meat is a status
symbol. However, people often eat meat as partof a feast.
The economic gap between developed anddeveloping countries is reflected in their meat
consumption. While people in developed
countries meet more than half (56 percent) of
their protein needs from animal sources, people
in developing countries obtain only 18 percent inthis way. This is in part a consequence of the debt
crises in the 1980s. When the World Bank and theInternational Monetary Fund insisted on the privatization of many state concerns and reductions
in government spending, governments had tocancel their support for food production. A number of countries had invested in developing semiindustrial poultry and pig production to improve
protein supplies for their citizens.
Foreign donors and cheap state loans also
supported small-scale producers. The situation
was tempting: demand for meat was rising andprices in the cities had stabilized at a high level. Asof the late 1980s, beef from herders was in short
supply in many local markets in Africa. This madepoultry farming attractive. Asante, a pensioner in
Ghana, was among those who got a loan in 1990.
It was granted by a microfinance institute that is
supported by the African Development Bank. He
built three big poultry houses, each holding 7,000
chicks, and started raising them for marketing in
the nearby city of Accra. Business was good, andhis whole family helped with feeding and cleaning. He was soon able to buy an electric feed mill,which made the work easier.
However, when Ghana joined the World
Trade Organization, importers suddenly started
flooding the market with cheap frozen meatfrom overseas. Asante was able to keep afloat fora while, but since 2006 his chicken houses havebeen empty. When he died in 2010, he left a debt
to his children. The family has not even been able
to sell the feed mill, but at least they can use it tomill grain for themselves and their neighbours.
An investment of 10,000 Euro has been negated,
and the buildings are a white elephant.
What caused the flood of meat to Ghana andother countries in West Africa? Except for Ango-

Biggest poultry importers in Africa

Angola

Benin

Congo

DR Congo

Ghana

South Africa

INDEXMUNDI/USDA

in 1,000 tonnes

all poultry imports to Africa

300
250

1,300

NA

1,254

200
150
100

513

612

2005

2006

680

705

2007

2008

763

995

50
0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Countries 2013: estimate. Africa 2012: FAO revision, Africa 2013: not available

44

MEAT ATLAS

Hungry livestock keepers
FAO

in millions, 2010

17

-2.05

+0.41

+3.75

170

12

Eastern Europe
and Central Asia

50
258
-1.42

East Asia
+3.35
23

28

219

-1.48

160

10

+4.62
13

Middle Eastand North
Africa106+0.89

of which India

105
7of which China

328

150

Central andSouth America
Sub-SaharanAfricaSouth Asia

below the national poverty
line for rural areasla, there were no subsidies for exports of poultry
meat to Africa. Some EU subsidies contribute to
price dumping, such as the area subsidies for feed
production in Europe, or support programmes for
new farm buildings. But they are less significant
in poultry production than in other agricultural
sectors. The trigger was mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Becauseof the BSE epidemic, the EU restricted the use ofmeat and bone meal as animal feed from 1996 on,and eventually banned it altogether. That is what
led to the export boom. In Europe, different partsof a chicken have different levels of profitability.
Breast fillets are so profitable that they financeall the other parts of the bird, including the legs
and wings. For the producer, if it is not breast, it iswaste. The feed industry used to take all this protein-rich material and use it to make feed. The ban
eliminated the market for these by-products, andproducers were even faced with having to destroy
them at their own expense.
But now they suddenly have new customers.
Exporters snap up these chicken pieces at a very
low price, frozen, straight from the slaughterhouse, and eminently suitable for human conMEAT ATLAS

under 2 dollars/day

annual change in poor livestock
keepers, 2000–2010, in percent

sumption. After covering the cost of shipping toWest Africa, they can be sold for two-thirds lessthan the locally raised chickens. The local producers have no way to compete. The wholesale prices
of imported chicken pieces are so low in Accra or
Monrovia, that they would cover only half theirproduction costs back in Europe. So far, no developing country has managed to impose a ban
on such dumping practices through the World
Trade Organization.
“Fragile” states such as Liberia, Congo andSierra Leone have only just begun investingin their agriculture as they recover from civil
war. But they are not investing in animal husbandry, because of the cheap imports from
Europe. Some countries, such as Cameroon, Senegal and Nigeria, have been successful in restricting imports. However, this has attracted smugglers who, in week-long transports, obtain EU
chicken parts from neighbouring countries suchas Benin. In areas where the imports have not yet
penetrated, poultry is a stable source of income
for many small farmers, especially women. But in
Ghana and Benin, the broiler industry has all but
died out.

Chickenbreasts are so
profitable that therest of the meatis worthless

45

DISQUIET IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD
Demand for meat in the developed world has peaked, and is beginning to decline
slowly. Consumers’ worries about food safety are reinforced by scandals in
the industry. The industry is trying to improve its image with marketing ploys,
but consumers are confused and the product is not necessarily any better.

M

blamed the decrease on the summer’s bad weather and a skipped barbecue season. Though thismight be one factor, it seems there is a slight trend
for consumers in industrialized countries to careabout the quality of their meat. More of them areasking where it comes from, how it is produced,
and whether it is healthy. And lifestyle magazines
now carry articles promoting low-meat diets as
healthy and modern.
One reason for this trend may be a series ofmeat scandals, including the use of meat thatis well past its sell-by date in pre-prepared fast
foods, the presence of dioxin in chicken feed, andhorsemeat marketed as beef. Such crimes comefrom increasing economic pressure as well ascomplex, distributed and globalized manufacturing chains. In 1954, one in three farms in Britain
kept a few pigs and sold them locally; today only
one in every 150 farms keeps a lot of pigs, and they
are sold all over the country. Suspicious consumers do not understand the structure of the meat
sector, they are sceptical of control systems, andthey no longer ignore the adverse effects of themeat industry on the environment, human healthand animal welfare.

eat production and consumption in therich, industrialized world have undergone
a massive transition over the last 50 years.
In 1950, the average person in the United Kingdom consumed just 20 grams of chicken a week,along with 250 grams of beef. Today, Mr or Ms
Average eats 250 grams of chicken and only 120
grams of beef.
However, there seems to be a dual trend in
The choice:most industrialized countries. A small number
cheap meat, orof people have started to eat less meat, andethically produced
healthy, low-meat diets have become trendy.
but more expensive
But many others cannot get fresh, quality food,and they lack the possibility to choose between
products
diets with or without meat.
Overall, meat consumption in most industrialized countries is high, but has stagnated. In somecountries, meat consumption has even gone down
for the first time in decades. In the United States,
the meat industry is alarmed by a 9-percent dropin consumption from 2007 to 2012. The industry
feels threatened by what it sees as “a propaganda
war on meat”. In Germany, in 2012, meat consumption went down by more than 2 kilograms
per person a year. The meat industry promptly

Food consumption by country groups

industrialized countries

plant and animal products

3,065

2,947
2,054

developing countries

3,206

2,152

1964–66

1984–86

industrialized countries

animal products only

3,380

3,440

2,681

2,450

1974–76

WHO, FAOSTAT

kcal per capita per day

2,850

1997–99

Europe

3,500
2,980

2015
estimate2030
estimate

least developed countries (in that year)

United States

China

1,200
1,000
800

1,005
833

600

929

971

977

958

976

923

1,049

964

925

594

1,013
694

400
200
0

46

132

90
1963

191

141
1983

178

160
2003

2009

MEAT ATLAS

Demand in the rich world is satiated

33.7
32.6

20.2
18.2

OECD/FAO

Meat consumption per capita, kilograms, average 2010–12 (estimate), and 2022 (forecast)

32.3
31.7

16.7
15.8
45.6
44.4

0.9 0.8
Canada

15.3
14.9

21.2
20.8
11.1
11.0

6.8 7.3

0.2 0.2Japan

2.0 1.7
39.6
38.8

European Union
26.5
24.7

12.8
12.7

21.1
20.8
22.9
22.1

21.5
20.0

0.4 0.3
USA

8.4

8.6

Australia
2010–
2012 2022

19.1
16.8

beef, veal
pigmeatpoultry
sheep, goats

MEAT ATLAS

15.7
15.5

10.2
8.8

New Zealand

us lose our taste for vegetables, and we are forgetting how to cook them, even though a vegetarianor low-meat diet would be cheaper.
For meat production to be sustainable, richconsumers have to eat less meat. And we must eat
differently. We have to reduce our consumptionof intensively reared livestock, while shifting to
the production and consumption of meat fromgrazing animals. These have a healthier balance of fats and micronutrients than animals
fed on grain, and they can turn something wecannot eat, grass, into milk and meat.

In theindustrialized
world, it’s easier tograb a burger
than a salad

Past the peak in the USA
Meat consumption per capita, kilograms, without
waste and pet food 2013 and 2014: estimates

CME

In response to declining meat consumption,meat companies have developed marketing labelsthat communicate certain animal-welfare standards and food-safety issues to consumers. They
do this rather than adopting one of the existingcertification schemes. Civil society organizations
warn that these new “standards” might confuse
consumers rather than improve the quality of themeat. Organic production would be an alternativethat takes consumer doubts into account. Organically produced animals may not be fed with genetically modified soy; a high percentage of their feed
has to come from the home farm; and antibiotics
are completely forbidden, or allowed on a very restricted basis only. Despite this, less than 2 percentof the meat sold in most industrialized countries isorganically produced.
One reason for this may be price: organically
produced meat costs nearly twice as much as
conventional meat. Conventional meat is cheap
to buy because some of its costs are hidden fromthe public. These include tax subsidies to factory
farmers, external environmental costs, or harm
to consumers due to low-quality diets. In timesof rising poverty and big income differences between the rich and the poor, many people find it
hard to spend more on food. Schools and canteensserve meat every day and have few vegetarian offerings, further raising our expectation of a daily
dose of meat. A high-pressure lifestyle is making

32.5
31.6

85

80

75

70

0
1966

1978

1990

2002

2014

47

HALF A BILLION NEW MIDDLE-CLASSCONSUMERS FROM RIO TO SHANGHAI
Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – the BRICS – are five big developing
countries that are setting out from different starting points. They may not end up
with the food consumption patterns of the industrialized West.

E“Non-veg”
has become astatus symbol in
India’s thriving
citiesconomic growth in the BRICS, a group of five
big developing countries named after theirinitials, is reflected in their meat consumption. Together, they account for 40 percent of theworld’s population. Between 2003 and 2012, theirmeat consumption rose by 6.3 percent a year. It is
expected to rise by another 2.5 percent a year between 2013 and 2022.
Both population growth and rising urbanization lead to more meat consumption. Urban residents tend to have more disposable
income than rural people. They eat more, andthey eat differently from their country cousins.
In particular, they tend to consume more animal
products. In 2011, the rural Chinese got by with26.1 kilograms of meat, milk and eggs. That wasaround 12.4 kilograms more than in 1990. But
their urban counterparts downed 48.9 kilograms,
an increase of 19.1 kilograms. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations assumes that by 2050, emerging markets will cover
only 46 percent of their caloric intake with grains;another 29 percent will come from meat, eggs,
milk and cheese.
To keep up with such demand, the world’s
farmers and agricultural firms will have to boost
their meat output from currently 300 million
tonnes to 470 million tonnes by 2050. Factory
farms, similar to those known in the industrial-

ized world since the 1950s, will have to be established everywhere. It is not clear how such huge
numbers of animals can be fed. Meat productionuses enormous amounts of feed grain, including
soybeans, whose production will have to nearly
double from 260 to 515 million tonnes a year
worldwide. Either yields per hectare will have torise, or more land will have to be brought into production, or both.
The world’s two most populous countries differ markedly in their consumption patterns. In
India, a vegetarian lifestyle has deep cultural andsocial roots. Many Hindus, along with ascetic Jains
and Buddhists, avoid eating meat altogether. In
surveys, a quarter or more of all Indians say they
are vegetarian. But the number of meat-eaters is
growing. Since the economic boom in the early
1990s, a broad middle class that aspires to a Western lifestyle has emerged. This includes eating
meat. “Non-veg”, as it is called in India, has become a status symbol among parts of the population. Nevertheless, meat consumption in India is
still small – per person it is less than one-tenth of
the amount consumed in China.
In Russia, the world’s biggest beef importer,
demand depends on prosperity from oil andgas export revenues. The country’s accession to
the World Trade Organization in 2012 has not
spiced up trade. Strict adherence to the WTO’s

Poultry in China and India: more determined by lifestyle than by population growthin 2000

in 2030

FAO

Poultry meat demand, 2000–2030, in percent, assuming population of 1.4 billion
attributable to population growth
growth as a function of both

attributable to changing lifestyle

population

population

1.4

11

1.2

1.4

11
78

1.0

27

1.0

68

0.8

0.8

China

0.6

India

0.6
0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2
0
0

48

5

1.2

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

per capita consumption(kilograms/year)

0
0

2

4

6

MEAT ATLAS

Meat consumption per capita, kilograms, average 2010–12 (estimate),and 2022 (forecast), in the BRICS countries(Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa)

OECD/FAO

Demand in the developing world is rising steeply
29.2
24.2
19.7

22.5
34.1

14.2
13.6

29.2
1.2 1.5

47.0

Russia

41.5

13.6
11.1
2.7 2.7

3.4 3.8

45.2

30.4
29.3

China
32.2
12.3
11.1
Brazil1.0 1.2

0.2 0.2

2.0 2.6

0.6 0.7

India
0.4 0.4
14.4
12.6
5.4 5.8

3.2 3.4

South Africa

2010–2012 2022
beef, veal
pigmeatpoultry
sheep

MEAT ATLAS

sales are attractive for would-be organic producers. In India, market researchers are expecting afive-fold increase in all organic product sales, from
190 million dollars in 2012, to 1 billion dollars in
2015. In 2011, sales in Brazil reached 550 million
dollars. And in China, where the certification requirements for organic products are among thestrictest in the world, sales in 2015 may range between 3.4 and 9.4 billion dollars a year.

Russia: consumption in crisis
kcal intake of animal products, per day per capita, including milk and eggs

FAOSTAT

rules should, it is said, dampen the volatility oftrade flows, be it from the countries that supply
meat or in terms of the quantities and types of
products. Furthermore, the Russian market is regarded as difficult because the processing sector
responds only slowly to new consumption trends.
This means that products are being offered forwhich there is only a low demand, and are therefore unprofitable. South Africa and Brazil are also
economically dependent on the world price ofraw materials. But unlike industrialized Russia,
livestock production is not unusual in these countries. In many South African communities, longafter the end of apartheid, economic relationships were based on livestock and meat, not only
as a trade item but also as a means of payment.
While meat is cheap in Brazil, it is expensive inSouth Africa. Several economic crises have ensured that the rising demand for meat is almost
entirely limited to cheap chicken.
Avian flu, contaminated milk, dead pigs disposed of in rivers – these are the consequences offactory farming and a lack of controls. In many
parts of Asia, they have awakened a consumerawareness that is similar to its counterpart in theindustrial world. Demand for organically produced food is rising. In the big cities, new retailchains and organic-food sections in supermarkets
are appearing. While the statistics do not differentiate between animal and vegetable products, the

800
750

Financialcrisis causes
setback
until 2011

700
High inflation
destroys private
savings; oldindustrial
conglomerates
in crisis

650
600

Oil and gas boom
boosts public
expenditure andprivate business
confidence

Banking crisis affects
foreign investment;
inflation reappears

550
500
0
1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

49

URBAN LIVESTOCK KEEPING
For many, urban livestock is a contradiction in terms. Isn’t livestock-raising a rural
activity, and don’t cities ban livestock because of the smell, noise and pollution?
Yet urban livestock are crucial for the livelihoods of many poor city dwellers. And
they provide nutritious food at lower prices than their country cousins.

A
For many
townsfolk, urban
dairy animals are
the only source offresh milk

wide range of livestock are kept within city
limits in many developing countries. They
perform various functions. Small animals
kept in towns include rabbits, guinea pigs andpoultry, usually to produce meat or eggs, which
their owners eat or sell. Medium-size animals
such as sheep, goats and pigs are raised between
buildings, in backyards and on roadsides. They
are kept mainly for meat, although the sheep
and goats may also be milked. Muslims slaughter sheep – preferably males – as a sacrificeduring religious festivals. As the festival approaches, the price of sheep rises sharply. Many
poorer households buy an animal several months
beforehand when prices are low, keep it at homeand feed it until the feast day. That may be the only
way they can afford an animal for the big day.
In many African and Asian cities, pasteurized
milk can be expensive and hard to get. And people

often prefer fresh milk to the packaged variety.
Urban residents often keep cattle, buffaloes andincreasingly camels to supply fresh milk. Most of
the milk is sold, but the dairy households keepsome for their own use. Poorer townsfolk keep
horses and donkeys for transport. Many of those
who cannot afford a motor vehicle earn a livingfrom cartage. In small Ethiopian towns, horsedrawn carts serve as taxis and donkeys are used
for transporting materials even in the capital cityof Addis Ababa.
Management and feeding of urban animals
varies greatly. Cattle, sheep and goats are often
kept in courtyards or vacant plots, and are taken
to graze on roadsides and beside railway tracks.
Poor people may leave their chickens outside toscavenge, or keep them in cages. Both grazing andscavenging animals eat vegetation in empty plots
and consume garbage, leftover food and organic

Developing countries: a panorama of informal production

6,500 cattle andbuffaloes, 3,700 pigs
officially (estimated noof pigs: 120,000), and5,700 sheep and goats

An estimated
25,000 cattle,
9,500 pigs and53,000 sheep andgoats live in town

16,500 cattle,
22,600 pigs and19,300 sheep andgoats live in themetropolitan area

11 percent of households
produce livestock

63,000 pigs
live in town

Mexico City

WORLD BANK, FAO

Examples, collected 1985 to 2008

Kathmandu
Dhaka

HavanaHubil-Dhawad

Cagayan de Oro
Nairobi
As many as 48 percent
of households in someslum areas are involvedin urban agriculture, thevast majority in small
livestock

Lima
La Paz15,000 – 20,000
pigs contribute six
percent of national
pigmeat production

Montevideo
Up to 55 percent ofhouseholds raisesmall livestock fortheir own consumption50

Dar es SalaamOver one-third ofhouseholds keep
livestock, mainly
chickens but also
rabbits, pigeons,
ducks and turkeys

80 percent of Dhaka’s
inhabitants are reported
to keep animals

4,000 cattle,
12,400 pigsand
3,250 goats live
in town

HarareMaputo29 percent ofhouseholds
raise livestock

16 percent of urban milk
consumption originatesfrom urban production,
44 percent fromperi-urban production

MEAT ATLAS

Results of a survey in the USA, 2011, 134 respondents
reason for raising livestock, percent
2

impact on neighbours, number of respondents

frequency of meat eating, percent

13
1

2

15

44

32

community building
animal sounds
multigenerational
engagement
education

20

12

44

noise nuisancesmell
fear of injury/
diseasePLUCKANDFEATHER.COM

Developed countries: livestock coming back to town

10

4

5

cost
ecology
culturesince starting livestock keeping
more
less meatsame as before“waste” in the streets. If people keep broilers or
dairy cows to supply the formal or informal market, they often buy feed supplements or mix themat home. They may also purchase hay, straw or
fresh lucerne (alfalfa) and bring it into town, often
by donkey.
How important are urban livestock? It is hard
to tell, as it is mainly informal and often illegal. In
the Republic of Congo, a study found that about
one-third of the people in Brazzaville were engaged in urban agriculture. Nine percent kept
livestock, mostly poultry. In the 1980s in Kenya,almost 70 percent of the households in Kibera, thebiggest slum in Nairobi, were practising urban
agriculture. That included an unknown numberof animal keepers. Twenty years later, the houses
had become so densely packed that it was almost
impossible to grow crops. But poultry and pigs arestill kept even in very congested urban areas. Animals take up less space than crops.
Not only the poor keep livestock in cities. In
Addis Ababa, the households with cattle have nine
animals on average. Many can even afford to hirelabour for grazing, feeding and other care. The
poorer livestock keepers tend to have poultry, andkeep a few sheep or goats. For these families, consuming their own animals on special occasions
may be their only chance to eat meat. This is important not only for their diets, but also for theirreligious beliefs and self-esteem.
Interest in livestock keeping in urban areas
typically increases when times are hard. In Kampala, Uganda, the number of urban animals rose
sharply during political upheavals. In Central Asia,
more urban residents started keeping animals after the Soviet Union collapsed. Livestock tend to
become less important when economies recoverand household incomes increase. This also occurred in European cities after the Second World
War. Therefore, a rise in urban livestock may be
a sign of economic distress and political crisis. At
such times, keeping livestock – and indeed urban
agriculture in general – is a survival mechanism,
primarily to provide food.
MEAT ATLAS

0

positive

negative

In the developed world, livestock keeping inurban areas, in the broad sense of the term, includes beekeeping, fish farming and using earthworms to produce compost. Its main purpose is togenerate income and provide a meaningful occupation. According to social researchers, it can help
boost the self-confidence and desire to learn andwork of young people living in the slums of big cities, such as New York.
However, when animals and people live close
together in cities, the risk of disease increases. This
is by no means limited to avian flu. Many humandiseases, such as influenza, smallpox, plague,measles, tuberculosis, and cholera, evolved
through the interaction of people and livestockover the last 10,000 years. Good veterinary care reduces the incidence of animal disease and the riskof transmission to humans.
Why should it be allowed to keep livestockin cities? During economic crises, it is an important coping strategy. It turns waste into a
resource and produces valuable meat, milk
and eggs. It raises the standing and self-esteemof poor people in societies in which animals play
an important cultural role. And it is crucial for thesocial security of vulnerable groups such as the elderly or households headed by women.

Kept onroadsides, unused
land and backyards,
animals incurfew costs

Rural and urban population
Population in developed and developing world, millions
rural, developing
rural, developed

urban, developing
urban, developed

5,000
4,000

WORLD BANK, FAO

better food source
educationcommunity building

3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

51

TURNING SCRUB INTO PROTEIN
Much of the world’s livestock, and much of its meat, milk and eggs, are raised by
non-industrial producers. Many of them manage their animals on land that is
unsuited for crops, optimizing the use of local resources. But the existence of theseproducers is under increasing threat.

O
Pastoralists
and smallholders
raise animals
on land unsuitedfor crops

ver 40 percent of the world’s land surface
is too dry, too steep, too hot or too cold forcrops. In such areas, livestock keepers havea strategic advantage: they can use their animals
to convert the local vegetation into food and energy. Their production methods have to be suited
to local conditions; they require specific livestock
breeds and a thorough understanding of the animals’ needs and the local situation. That makesthese methods sustainable.
Pastoralists are experts in this respect.
They are mobile livestock keepers, herding
large numbers of cattle, sheep, goats, camels,
reindeer, yak, llamas and alpaca on common
land. Developed over centuries, their breeds arewell adapted to the sparse vegetation in drylands,
roadsides, harvested fields and other rough environments. By moving their animals to graze different areas, pastoralists have survived for centuries
in the most inhospitable regions without depleting their resource base. Spending only a shorttime in each place allows the vegetation to recoverand keeps parasites down. Special arrangements
govern the access to land and water in pastoral

Meat and milk from seasonal pastures

9

7
13

15
beef

50

ILRI/HERREROWorld share, percent, 2000/2010*

59

milk
17

19
4

7

28

28
lamb
5

18
21

52

agropastoral (semi-nomadic
production on seasonal pastures)
mixed extensive (crops and livestock)
mixed intensive (crops and livestock,
irrigated)otherdeveloped countries* Data: 2000, year of publication: 2010.
More recent data not available

areas. The Borana of southern Ethiopia, for example, have a complex network of institutions andcommittees that oversee their herd movements
and coordinate resource use with other pastoral
groups in the area.
Mobile grazing can be more productive perhectare than ranching, and can be more profitable than other, more intensive, types of land use.
However, pastoral systems are increasingly breaking down as migration is being restricted. Factors
include the expansion of cropping, the privatization and fencing of previously open land, and government limits on animal movements.
In slightly more favourable areas, smallholder
farmers grow crops as well as keeping livestock.
They may own or rent a few hectares for crops, andmay graze their animals on common land. They
also use the resources they have to hand, but they
may also buy inputs such as additional feed. Theirlivestock may be local breeds or crosses with highyielding, introduced breeds. They may leave theiranimals to scavenge (e.g., backyard chickens),
herd them along roadsides and in harvested fields(sheep, goats, cattle, buffaloes), or cut feed andtake it to animals kept in pens and stables (dairy
cattle and buffaloes, sheep, goats, etc.).
Smallholders recycle nutrients on their farms
by feeding crop residues to their livestock and using the animals’ dung to fertilize the fields andfor fuel. By doing this, and by using family labour,
they can minimize their input costs and operatecost-efficiently. They may even produce livestock
at a lower per-unit cost than large farms. But theytend to lose out against the large farms because of
the small volume they produce per farm.
Data on the numbers of pastoralists and smallholder farmers tend to be vague. More than 45
defined pastoral groups have been recorded inover 40 countries, but pastoralists in some form orother are likely to occur in many more countries.
In much of Europe, for example, migratory shepherds graze their sheep on pastureland and crop
stubble. Sheep raisers in Scotland and Wales produce meat and wool in the rain-swept highlands.
International bodies estimate that there are some120–200 million pastoralists worldwide. Smallholder farms are estimated to number some 500
million in developing countries and some 600 million globally, and most of them have at least somelivestock.
The numbers are probably so vague because
definitions vary from place to place, and the disMEAT ATLASPastoral peoples around the world

cattlesheep goats drome- bactrian donkeys, yaks buffaloes reindeer llamas vicuñas
daries camels horses

tinction between pastoralists and smallholders isfine, and is changing all the time. Pastoralists are
increasingly settling in one place; many become
agropastoralists, who grow some crops but keepsome or all their animals on the move. And someone regarded as a smallholder in Brazil may countas a medium or large farmer in East Africa.
It is equally difficult to find data on the economic contribution of such pastoralists and smallholders, though this can be substantial. In 2006,
the World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism
found that pastoralists accounted for around 65
percent of Ethiopia’s total milk production, without allowing for the milk they consumed themselves, and 9 percent of the national gross domestic product (GDP). In Uganda, they accounted for
8.5 percent of GDP; in Mali, 10 percent; and in
Mongolia, about 30 percent. Pastoralists’ shares ofagricultural GDP were 80 percent in Sudan, Senegal and Niger, and 50 percent in Kenya.
Pastoralists and smallholders do not just produce a lot of food. They also help protect the enMEAT ATLAS

FAOAnimal husbandry, by countries and main species, examples

vironment and conserve biodiversity. In Europe,
the traditional sheep trails used by migrant shepherds are among the biodiversity-richest spots inthe continent. In the Netherlands, flocks of sheep
help maintain dykes; in Germany, they preventthe open landscapes that attract tourists fromturning into forest.
But pastoralists and smallholders rarely havea lobby in political circles, and they seldom receive the support they need to maintain andimprove their own systems. On the contrary,
they are being urged to switch to new technologies and achieve higher inputs. They need recognition and legislation to make it possible forthem to move their animals from place to place,and to ensure they have access to resources, information and markets. They need adequate payment for their services in landscape management
and biodiversity conservation. Not all pastoralists
and smallholder farmers want to continue theircurrent lifestyles, but they should be able to if theywish to do so.

Pastoralists
should be allowed
to follow theirancestral migrationroutes53

IN SEARCH OF GOOD FOOD
Concerned consumers in the rich world face a dilemma. They want good-quality
meat that is produced in an environmentally friendly, ethical manner. How best
to ensure this? Here we look at some alternatives.

In August 2013, the first “lab-grown hamburger” was served in London. The substance is produced by growing strains of proteins in a Petri
dish from single cells taken from a living animal.
A lot of effort goes into achieving a meat-like flavour, colour and texture that, as the producers
claim, cannot be distinguished from actual
meat in a blind test. The idea is to get the protein, meat-like flavour and texture as benefits
to the consumer while avoiding harm to theanimal and the environment.
This first “lab-burger” cost about 250,000
dollars to produce, and apart from practicalissues,there are more fundamental problems
with this approach. While taste and texture canbe somewhat mimicked, lab-grown “meat” overlooks the fact that animals, especially ruminants,
play a complex and important role in our ecosystems. In fact, the endeavour could be a new nadirin the alienation of people from their food sourc-

Lab-grownmeat might notpose ethicaldilemmas but it
ignores ecology

es, and the natural cycles of which we all are part.
Less consumption and farming in an ecologicallysound way would be a better alternative.
Doing so not only produces nutritious food; italso ensures farming as a source of livelihood anda way of life. It keeps the soil alive, water and air
clean, greenhouse gases in check, and biodiversity
thriving. But farmers who use ecological methods
are struggling to compete with large-scale industrial producers who focus on speed and quantity.
These big producers can afford to sell at low prices
because they do not take external costs including
damage to the environment, or harm to animals
and human health, into account.
Consumers do not get much real information
about the meat they are buying. Even labels formeat and cured meat that meet European legal
requirements, such as for organic standards, often fail to give enough information about where
the animal was raised, its breed, animal welfare,

Certified organic agriculture
FAO

Share of total arable land, 2009, percent

no data available
up to 0.49 percent
0.49–3 percent
over 3 percent

0.12

0.94

0.25

5.76

3.11

0.78

AfricaAmericas

Asia

EuropeOceaniaworld

Many peasants in the world produce organically but uncertified due to lack of chemical fertilizers

54

MEAT ATLAS

Attitudes towards meat in a wealthy society

low meat consumer

average meat consumer

KAYSER ET AL.

German consumers’ attitudes to individual and ethical issues of meat consumption, sample, 2011
heavy meat consumer

percentage of respondents
percentage of meat in the total diet

7.12

19.00

38.31

general preference for meat
trust in the agri-food sector
environmental awarenessstrong positive+16 to +58 index points
moderate negative-2 to -15 index points
strong negative-16 to -40 index points

health awarenessfigure awarenesseating of animals
animal welfare awareness990 respondents, of whom 34 (3 percent) were excluded as vegetarians

MEAT ATLAS

of who they are working for. The farming businessis shielded from market fluctuations and the exploitation of human, animal or environmental resources. Appropriate practices conserve water,
air and the soil.
A change in food systems is unavoidable.
But corporations are not the only ones that can
set the rules for the food market. More information, communication and collaboration between producers and consumers as “co-producers”, and greater knowledge about our roles in the
global ecosystem can achieve real change.

Consumers
need information
to have a say in
how their food is
produced

Customer’s alternatives: community supported agriculture (CSA)
Number of US farms with growers and consumers
sharing risks and benefits, estimates

MCFADDEN

slaughtering and processing methods, or advice
on how to store and use the meat. Labels withfull information can restore competitive value toa product because they differentiate it from themass of goods that fail to provide relevant information about fundamental questions.
The term “co-producer” was coined a few years
ago to highlight the power of the consumer to go
beyond a passive role, and become an influential
and active player in the production process. A coproducer is a conscious stakeholder in the foodsystem who makes conscious choices by knowing
who produces food and how.
A model called “community-supported agriculture” has started to put this into practice. Thisis a mechanism that secures livelihoods for farmers, thereby supporting responsible production
practices such as extensive, pasture-based animalhusbandry. In community-supported agriculture,a group of people guarantees the purchase of allseasonally available produce from the farmer, i.e.
vegetables, meat, dairy products, honey, etc. They
also share the risk of dealing with natural processes. They pay in advance, thus helping to financethe production costs along the way. This arrangement is used in various countries. In German it iscalled Solidarische Landwirtschaft, in French, Association pour le maintien d’une agriculture paysanne , and in Italian, Gruppo di acquisto solidale.
This results in a win–win situation for everyone involved, the customers (or members of thescheme), the farmers and their businesses, theregional economy, the animals and the environment. The customers get good, fresh produce.
They know where it comes from and how it was
produced; they learn about the food they eat, andthey expand their social networks. The farmers get
financial and hands-on support, as well as a sense

6,000–6,500

2013

3,600

2009

1,000

2000

60

1990

2

1986

55

VEGETARIANISM: MANY ROOTS,MANY SHOOTS
Only a small percentage of the population in the industrialized world describe
themselves as vegetarians or vegans. Such lifestyles are more common inparts of the world where religions play a major role. In most faiths, followers
are expected to abstain from meat in one way or another.

I
Many reasons
to avoid meat:
ethical, religious,
health, ecological,romantic

n South Asia, vegetarianism has a long tradition. As part of various Indian religions, it was,and still is, widespread. In India itself, about aquarter of the population do not eat meat. In Buddhism and especially in Hinduism, belief in rebirthand adherence to non-violence lead people to reject the consumption of meat and the slaughter ofanimals. A broad spectrum of religions range instrictness, the highest of which is Jainism, wheremonks brush aside even the tiniest insects toavoid treading on them. Most Buddhist sects
allow milk and milk products, some permit theconsumption of fish, and others allow meat if
the animal has been slaughtered by a non-Buddhist. Although vegetarianism is declining in theregion, it is still regarded as virtuous and exemplary in many parts of South and East Asia.
For religious reasons, Muslims and Jews do
not eat pork. Historically this is probably due tothe risk of trichinosis, a human disease causedby parasitic worms found in the meat of infected
pigs. Some Christians observe fasting days, andeat fish instead of meat on Fridays. Some devout
Catholics and many deeply religious Orthodox
Christians also fast on Wednesdays. The Orthodox
churches of East and Southeast Europe and Northwest Africa recognize several fasting periods during the year. The 35 million followers of the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church observe a vegandiet during the month before Christmas, for the
55 days leading up to Easter, 16 days in the summer, and on Wednesdays and Fridays that do
not coincide with a feast day – a total of about six
months a year. A maximalist interpretation of therules stipulates fasting on 250 days a year. In Europe, religious orders and hermits practised asceticism to dull their worldly desires. However, sinceeggs and milk were permitted they were ovo-lacto
vegetarians.
Inspired by philosophy rather than religion,
vegetarianism began in the West in the Mediterranean region. The ancient Greek and Roman poets
Hesiod, Plato and Ovid mention a vegetarian lifestyle as a feature of the earliest times. The Scythians of the Eurasian steppes were said to subsist
mainly on meat; some said they were cannibals.
In the Roman Empire, it was Apollonius of Tyana,in Asia Minor, who spread the idea of renouncing
meat in the 1st century AD. This philosopher, oneof the first vegans, denounced animal sacrifices,and refused to wear leather or fur.
Two centuries later, the scholar, Porphyry ofTyre, wrote a special paean to vegetarianism. In
his essay De Abstinentia (On Abstinence), he rejects the consumption of meat: it is unjust to eat
a sentient animal, and the complex preparationand digestion would distract a frugal philosopher from his other tasks. Other great thinkers

Vegetarians: a growing minority in the West, a major force in India

USA

4
2

EU

vegetarians
vegansmen
7

GALLUP, NVS, SNS

People describing themselves as vegetarian or vegan, in percent of the population

women

men and women

2–10

India

men and women, estimates31

men and women

Millions of vegetarians
USA

15

EU

10–50

375

India

56

MEAT ATLAS

145

123

“Vegetarianism” and “veganism” – page views in Wikipedia

25
27

99
95

95

22

89
85
(sept.)

73

17

16
13

25
20

25
19

?

?
11

9
2009

65

2010

12
6

11

5

10

9

2013

2009

12
16

8

2012

2013

2009

2010

2011

23
19 19
16

11

French

2011

Russian
2012

2010

2011

2012

2013

“vegetarianism”“veganism”

49
44

Only click rates above 5,000 a month, selected language versions.
Most users from developing countries use the English-language
Wikipedia.

31

English13

10

German69

STATS.GROK.SE

Monthly click rates in August of each year, by language versions, thousands

25
20
16

20

16
10

10

5
Spanish

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2009

2010

2011

are also reported to have been vegetarians. Unlike Porphyry, the philosophers René Descartes(1596–1650) and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
rejected the “humanitarian” obligations towards
animals. However, the inventor Leonardo da Vinci(1452–1519) and the statesman Benjamin Franklin (1706–90) supported these obligations. Thomas Tryon (1634–1703), an English merchant andauthor, was an early animal-rights activist. Taking
up Indian ideas in his books, he not only advocated

A selection of vegetarian varieties
eggs
ovo
vegetarianism

vegetarianism

ovolacto
veg.

milk,
dairy
products

lacto
vegetarianism

veganism

pescetarianism
meat

MEAT ATLAS

fish

Some exclude
pescetarians fromvegetarianism

5
2012

2013

2009

68

10

7
13

8
Portuguese
2010

2011

2012

3

15
9

3
9

3

12

11

4
12

6
9

Japanese
2013

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

pacifism among people, but also preached nonviolence towards all types of animals.
Vegetarian clubs and associations had their
beginnings in England in the 19th century andwere soon established in many countries. The
term “vegetarian” itself was coined during thistime. Repelled by the consequences of the industrial revolution, the growth of the proletariat andurbanization, the vegetarians initially formed aromantic opposition. Poets and authors such as
In the West,
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822), George Bervegetarianismisnard Shaw (1856–1950) and Leo Tolstoy (1828–
based on philosophy1910) joined the movement. In addition to thecritique of civilization, vegetarianism added
rather thanstrands based on asceticism and animal protecreligion
tion – for example, opposition to experiments on
living animals.
In wealthier countries, the animal-rights
movement and political veganism are the mostrecent strands that insist on renouncing meat.
The animal-rights movement sees people and animals as equal components of a common society;
it rejects the use and exploitation of animals. Veganism sets out ethical, environmental and antiglobalization arguments. It is based in vegetarianism, but also avoids the use of animal products
such as wool and leather, as well as anything containing animal ingredients, such as cosmetics. In
industrialized countries, veganism is increasingly
accepted as a lifestyle.

57

WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT:
INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS
Given all the problems with livestock production and meat consumption, is there
anything that normal people can do? Yes: individuals can make choices about theirconsumption patterns, and groups can push for change.

A
Livestockproduction
should respect
both people andnaturesmall but growing number of people in developed countries are making a choice: they
are insisting on products that conserve theenvironment and respect animal welfare. Many
people are starting to choose ‘flexitarian’ diets
which includes eating less and better meat andmore plant based protein. United Nations agencies such as the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization
recognize the need for change. In 2010, FAO
defined a sustainable diet as “…those dietswith low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and tohealthy life for present and future generations.
Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of
biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable;
nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while
optimizing natural and human resources.”
Many civil society organizations and farmers’
movements are calling for a different food andagriculture system: one that respects both people
and nature. Along with international organizations such as the World Cancer Research Fund,they are pushing for less meat in Western dietsand healthy menus in public institutions suchas hospitals and schools. The Meat Free Mondays
movement has gained momentum and has now
been established in 29 countries around the world.
Animal welfare concerns are also attracting attention, and not just in Western societies:
The Eurogroup for Animals unites 40 organizations across Europe to defend animal welfare
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in the
USA says that “animals are not ours to eat, wear,
experiment on, use for entertainment or abusein any way”.
The Chinese Animal Protection Network consistsof more than 40 groups and wants to shift fromemotion to science as a basis for efforts to protect
animals.
The Animal Welfare Board of India advises thegovernment and has been “the face of the animal welfare movement in the country for the last
50 years.”
The demands of all these organizations areclearly directed at wealthy, middle-class consumers around the world. However, no one has anything against the nearly one billion people, someof them the world’s poorest, who depend on rear-Membership by country, 2013

VIA CAMPESINA

Via Campesina, a worldwide organization for small-scale farmers

164 organizationsin 79 countries

58

MEAT ATLAS

protein supply,grams
per capita
per day

0.2

0.8

10.8
7.9

0.2

0.6

1.6
Japan

South Korea

China

developed world, but a number of start-ups areinvestigating possibilities. In London, Ento is taking culinary science to new levels with sushi-style
products. In New York, Exo has designed a protein
bar containing flour made from crickets. These insects emit 80 percent less methane than cattle andhave twice as much protein as chicken and steak.
Mainstreaming sustainable meat consumption
must become a priority for individuals and governments alike.
For more information on websites, books, films, see pp. 64–65.

FAO

Insect species per country

poultry

40

55

MEAT ATLAS

1.3

food supply,
kilograms
per capita
per year

55

80

pigs

16.5

Edible insectsEdible percentage of whole animal

crickets

production,
million tonnes
per year

FAO

Protein alternatives: cricket efficiency

Protein alternatives: aquatic plants
FAOSTATing all kinds of domestic animals, from chickens toyaks, as pastoralists or in mixed-farming systems.
Small-scale farmers’ organizations across theglobe are united in their efforts to maintain thismethod of farming.
One of the biggest organizations is La Via Campesina, an international alliance of small-scale
producers, that comprises about 164 local andnational organizations in 79 countries from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Altogether, it
represents about 200 million farmers. It defends
small-scale sustainable agriculture as a way topromote social justice and dignity. It strongly
opposes corporate-driven agriculture and transnational companies that are harming people
and nature.
More and Better is an international network ofsocial movements, non-governmental organizations and national campaigns from all over theworld. It focuses on support for agriculture, ruraldevelopment, and food in developing countries.
The Food Sovereignty Movement advocates forcommunities to have control over their food systems. It promotes diverse forms of food culture,in particular the consumption of high-quality
local and seasonal foods and the omission ofhighly processed food. This includes a lower consumption of meat and animal products.
A combination of individual choices andchanges in laws and policies will bring abouta change in society’s relationship with meat.
Wealthy populations can afford a healthy dietwith little or no animal protein, or shift to othersources of protein like aquatic plants. Another option is to eat insect-based protein, as a recent United Nations report suggests. We are still a long way
from including insects in mainstream diets in the

cattle1–100
100–200

200–300
over 300

59

A GREENER POLICY FOR EUROPE
The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has for decades supported,and distorted, farm production. It has evolved from supporting large-scale
production to taking the environment increasingly into account. But
problems remain. A greener CAP could promote socially and ecologicallysound livestock production.

Tthe impression that the EU was producing agricultural surpluses. The fact that the exports werepossible only because of rising imports of feed waslargely neglected in the debate.
In 1992, the first big policy shift, from guaranteed prices to area payments, had a limited effect.
Domestic cereals again became more attractive
than feed. But soy imports accelerated because theguaranteed prices for beef were lowered, making
it more attractive to rear pigs and chickens that
require more protein, and therefore more soy intheir diets. No area payments were made for grassland, while a new premium was paid for every hectare of silo maize. This gave a further incentive toshift production to intensive systems and to convert grassland to crop growing.
Eleven years later, the last major policy shift extended area payments to all types of agriculturalland, including grassland, and thus removed the
major disincentives for less-industrial forms of
livestock rearing. But the trend to convert grassland to cropland continued, partly because of
new incentives for growing maize for biogas. Such

he European Union’s Common Agricultural
Policy has been an important driving force
for the industrialization and globalizationof livestock production. Until the early 1990s, theEU guaranteed prices for livestock significantly
above world market prices. This provided EuroTwo steps topean farmers with an incentive to increase proa solution: support
duction. At the same time, the CAP guaranteed
pasture, not housing; high prices for cereals, but gave no support for
promote local feed
oilseeds. Trade policy supported this pattern,withhigh tariffs for livestock and cereals, andproduction
low or zero tariffs for oilseeds and feedstock. This
policy promoted the intensification of livestock
production based on imported feed versus grazing and domestically grown feed.
Decades ago, the EU became a net exporter ofmeat and dairy products. Since the guaranteed
domestic prices were higher than world market
prices, exports were possible only through “refunds” for exporters, which covered the difference between the internal and external prices.
These subsidies turned out to be a major subjectof dispute in international trade. Its exports gave

Benefitting from protection and subsidies – the European Union’s Top 15 meat companies
GIRA

Meat production, 1,000 tonnes, 2010/11
497

1
2

7

362

2,040
2,525

353

470

4

941

11

410
9

10

7

2

8

727

10

3

12

416
15

450

5
6

14
13

beef and veal
pigs
poultry
sheep

3
4

355

1

9
11

5

13
12

1,546

6

14
15

Vion Food Group, NL
Danish Crown AmbA, DK
Tönnies, DE
Bigard, FR
Westfleisch, DE
LDC, FRHKScan, FI
Gruppo Verones, IT
Cooperl, FR
Groupe Doux, FR
Plukon Food Group, NL
Terrena, FR
Irish Food Processors/ABP, IE
Moy Park (Marfrig), UK
2 Sisters Food Group, UK

558
8

487

60

MEAT ATLASAnimals for meat production, livestock units, 2011,per hectare arable land

0.50
Finland0.67
Swedenstocking density
Over 3
2-3
1-2
0.5-1
under 0.5

2.02
Portugal

5.45
Ireland2.20
United Kingdom

EUROSTAT, INDEX MUNDI

Livestock density in the European Union

1.97
Denmark

0.48
Estonia
0.78
Latvia0.41
Lithuania

6.44
4.60 Netherlands
0.94
Belgium
1.50
PolandGermany
2.71
0.54
Luxembourg
Czech Republic 0.48
Slovakia
1.85
0.57
1.23
Austria Hungary
France3.08
Slovenia

1.08
Spain

1.46
Italy

Eurostat calculation
for a livestock unit
(examples):
0.4 calf
1.0
dairy cow
0.1
sheep
0.5 breeding sow
0.007 broiler

0.61
Romania
0.35
Bulgaria

0.96
Greece2.42
Cyprus

4.67
Malta

MEAT ATLAS

Fourth, animal-welfare rules, which areclearly defined for many types of pets, should
be expanded to cover livestock. Each type of
livestock should be managed in a way that is
appropriate for that species. The EU should develop laws to govern this: for example, animals
should be kept in herds or flocks that allow themto develop their natural ranking and social relationships. Animals should be able to move aroundwithout hindrance. This would prohibit keeping
animals in stalls without daylight or fresh air.
Unrealistic and naïve? These are rules thatmany organic livestock raiser associations havefollowed for years. A template for sustainable animal management has already been in existence
for a long time.

Two moresteps: expand
animal welfare; ban
the misuse ofantibiotics

What happens when incentives go wrong
Public storage of overproduced beef and butter under the European Community’s
Common Agricultural Policy, 1.000 tonnes

EUgrassland losses have at least been recognized as aproblem in the latest CAP reform, agreed in 2013.
Now farmers will receive their full area payments
only if they conserve existing grassland. In addition, EU member states and individual regions arefree to give extra support to sustainable forms ofanimal rearing, such as grazing and organic production. They can draw this money from anotherEU pot, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development.
But what might a EU policy that puts sustainable animal rearing at the centre of efforts to shapefarming in a socially and ecologically sound way
look like? Four steps could convert Europe’s meat
policies from being part of the problem to part ofthe solution.
First, the European Commission could stop
spending money to support the construction of
intensive fattening houses. Instead, it should support small and medium enterprises in difficult
locations that keep their animals in pasture formuch of the year.
Second, the EU should require farmers to produce at least half their animal feed on their own
farm. That would take the wishes of European consumers seriously. The EU could also ban the use ofgenetically modified fodder. A clear set of rules on
feed procurement would eliminate international
imbalances in nutrients. Slurry and manure would
no longer be transported long distances, butwould be used to fertilize the farmer’s own land.
Third, the application of antibiotics in feed
and watering systems should be prohibited. Thatwould mean animals would be treated individually, based on a veterinary diagnosis.

1,400
1,200

butter intervention stock
beef intervention stock

1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

61

AUTHORS AND SOURCES
FOR DATA AND GRAPHICS
10–11
THE RISE OF THE GLOBAL MARKET,
by Christine Chemnitz

24–25
A SPECIES-POOR PLANET,
by Kathy Jo Wetterp.10: FAO Food Outlook, June 2013. p.11:
FAOSTAT. OECD FAO agricultural outlook,2013-2022.

p.24: FAO, Livestock’s long shadow, 2006.
p.25: ETC Group; Keith O. Fuglie et al., Research
Investments and Market Structure in the
Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel
Industries Worldwide, USDA ERS, 2011.
Sarah Beth Moore et al., Heritage breeds:
Saving chickens and cows from extinction, Medill
Reports, June 3, 2011

12–13
CONCENTRATION: ECONOMIESOF SCALE BUT LESS DIVERSITY,
by Kathy Jo Wetterp.12: FAO Food Outlook, June 2013. p.13:
Leatherhead Food Research, ETC Group

14–15
MAKING PRODUCTS FORM ANIMALS:
THE SLAUGHTER INDUSTRY,
by Marcel Sebastianp.14: Riva Caroline Hodges Denny, Between the
Farm and the Farmer’s Market: Slaughterhouses,
Regulations, and Alternative Food Networks.
Auburn, Alabama 2012. p.15: FAOSTAT

16–17
BRIGHT PINK IN THE COLD CABINET,
by Annette Jensen
p.16: Euromonitor international, Fast foodin China, 2013. Viveat Susan Pinto, Are store
additions by food retail chains sustainable?
Business Standard, Mumbai, Sept. 13, 2013.
p.17: Euromonitor international, Datagraphic:
A Panorama of Packaged Food, Oct. 10, 2013

18–19
FREE TRADE VERSUS SAFE FOOD,
by Shefali Sharm andKaren Hansen-Kuhn
p.18: Bertelsmann-Stiftung/ifo Institut, Die
Transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft (THIP), 2013. p.19: USDA ERS

20–21
THE HIDDEN COST OF STEAK,
by Reinhild Benning
p.19-20: OECD, Agricultural Policy Monitoringand Evaluation, 2012. OECD database

22–23
WHY FARMS KILL FISH: BIODIVERSITYLOSS ON LAND AND IN WATER,
by Tobias Reichert
p.22: OECD, Agricultural Policy Monitoring and
Evaluation, 2012. p.23: FAO, Livestock’s long shadow, 2006 ; The European Nitrogen Assessment.
Sources, Effects and Policy Perspectives, 2011

62

26–27
ANTIBIOTICS: BREEDING SUPERBUGS,
by Kathrin Birkel
p.26: EWG, Superbugs invade American
supermarkets, April 2013. p.27: EMA, Salesof veterinary antimicrobial agents in 25 EU/EEA
countries in 2011, Third ESVAC report, 2013.
BVL, Zoonosen-Monitoring, Berichte zur
Lebensmittelsicherheit, 2010

28–29
WHEN THE TANK IS RUNNING DRY,
by Manfred Kriener
p.28-29: A. Y. Hoekstra, M. M. Mekonnen, The
water footprint of humanity, Twente 2011.
p.29: Nippon Ham Annual Report FY 2011.
www.waterfootprint.org

30–31
THE GRAIN IN THE FEED TROUGH,
by Stephan Börnecke
p.30-31: WWF, Meat eats land, 2011. p.31:
FAO: Challenges and opportunities for carbon
sequestration in grassland systems, 2010.

32–33
THE EMERGENCE OF A LATIN
AMERICAN SOY EMPIRE,
by Michael Álvarez Kalverkamp
p.32-33: USDA ERS: Agriculture in Brazil andArgentina, 2001; FAOSTAT database; USDA GAIN:
Argentina Oilseeds and Products, 2012; Indec,
Intercambio Comercial Argentino, Jan. 23,
2013; Soybeans: U.S. Export Trend is up, Share ofWorld Exports is Down, Global AgInvesting,
Sept. 26, 2013. p.33: Indec database

34–35
THE CLIMATE COST OF CATTLE,
by Stephan Börnecke
p.34: EWG, Meat Eater’s guide to climatechange and health, 2011. p.35: FAO, Tackling
Climate Change through livestock, 2013
MEAT ATLAS

36–37RANCHERS IN THE RAINFOREST,
by Thomas Fatheuer
p.36: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005.
p.37: FAO; Instituto Nacional de pesquisas
especiais (Inpe); Rhett A. Butler, Brazil: satellite
data suggests rise in Amazon deforestation
over past year, mongabay.com, Sept. 12, 2013

48–49
HALF A BILLION NEW MIDDLE-CLASSCONSUMERS FROM RIO TO SHANGHAI,
by Sascha Zastiralp.48: FAO, Mapping supply and demand foranimal-source foods to 2030, 2011. p.49: OECD
FAO Agricultural Outlook 2013–2022, 2013.
FAOSTAT database

38–39
THE GLYPHOSATE IN YOUR BURGER,
by Heike Moldenhauer

50–51
URBAN LIVESTOCK KEEPING,
by Wolfgang Bayer and Ann Waters-Bayer

p.38: USDA ERS, USGS Pesticide National
Synthesis Project. p.39: FAO Statistical Yearbook
2012, www.centerfordoodsafety.org. Red
universitaria de ambiente y salud, El consume
de agrotóxicos en Argentina aumenta
continuamente, June 23, 2013

p.50-51: World Bank/FAO, Urban Agriculture,
For Sustainable Poverty Alleviation and Food
Security, 2008. p.51: pluckandfeather.com,
Urban Livestock in Oakland, 2011

40–41
A PLETHORA OF POULTRY: CHICKENSTAKE THE LEAD, by Shefali Sharma
p.40: FAO, Global livestock production systems,
2011. p.41: DSW report, 2012; FAO, Food
Outlook 11/2012. FAO, Statistical Yearbook 2013

42–43
WHERE KEEPING CHICKENSIS WOMEN’S WORK, by Francisco Maríp.42-43: Juliet Karuki et al., Women, Livestock
Ownership and Food Security. In: Bridging
the Gender Gap: Women, Livestock Ownershipand Markets in Eastern and Southern Africa,
ILRI 2013. p.43: A. J. Kitalyi, Village chicken
production systems in rural Africa; D. X. Tung,
Smallholder poultry production in Vietnam:
marketing characteristics and strategies;
E. F. Guèye, Gender aspects in family poultry
management systems in developing countries;
all FAO 1998–2005

44–45
IMPORTED CHICKEN WINGS DESTROY
WEST AFRICAN BUSINESSES,
by Francisco Maríp.44: Indexmundi/USDA database. p.45:
FAO, Livestock sector development for poverty
reduction, 2012

46–47
DISQUIET IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD,
by Patrick Holden
p.46: WHO/ FAOSTAT databasis; J. Kearney, Foodconsumption trends and drivers. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society, Biologicalsciences, 2010. p.47: OECD FAO Agricultural
Outlook 2013–2022, 2013. CME Daily Livestockreport, Dec. 20, 2011, with USDA, Livestock,
Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, Nov. 15, 2013
MEAT ATLAS

52–53
TURNING SCRUB INTO PROTEIN,
by Evelyn Mathias
p.52: ILRI/Mario Herrero, Food security,
livelihoods and livestock in the developingworld, 2010. p.53: FAO, Pastoralism in
the new millenium, 2001, with additions

54–55
IN SEARCH OF GOOD FOOD,
by Ursula Hudson and Carlo Petrini
p.54: FAO Statistical yearbook, 2012. p.55: Maike
Kayser et al., Analysis of Differences in Meat
Consumption Patterns. International Food andAgribusiness Management Review, 2013.
Steven McFadden, Unraveling the CSA Number
Conundrum, thecalloftheland, Jan. 9, 2012

56–57
VEGETARIANISM: MANY ROOTS, MANYSHOOTS, by Dietmar Bartz
p.56: USA, Gallup 2012, Europe: Nationale
Verzehrstudie II, 2008, with estimates by author,
India: Hindu-CNN-IBN State of the Nation
Survey, 2006. p.57: stats.grok.se

58–59
WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT:
INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS,
by Ruth Shave and Stanka Becheva
p.58: viacampesina.org. p.59: FAOSTAT database.
FAO, Edible insects, 2013

60–61
A GREENER POLICY FOR EUROPE,
by Tobias Reichert
p.60: GIRA, Richard Brown: Structure &dynamics of the European Meat Industry,
2010/11–2015, Brussels 2012. p.61: Eurostat/
Index mundi database. EU, The Common
Agricultural Policy explained, 2004, andDairyCo Market Information, Nov. 26, 2013

63

RESOURCES
NGO REPORTS

Food andclimatein the UK,
2010
Dutch soy coalition
research: soy
barometer, 2012

An analysis of Chinese
pig production, 2013

BOOKS

Glyphosate, a reason
for concern, 2013

From forest to fork:
On soy, cattle and sugarin Brazil, 2010

How to handle
the daily foodchoices, 2006

Intensive poultry andlivestock farming: anearly exposure, 1964
Ethical issues aroundmeat, 2009

On peasant societies’
struggle for autonomy
and sustainability, 2009

A portrait of the US
burger industry,
2001 (film 2006)

Cover copyrights © WWF UK (How low can we go). Friends of the Earth (From forest to fork; Introducing glyphosate).
Little, Brown and Company (Eating animals). Stuart (Animal machines). Earthscan (New peasantries). Houghton Mifflin Company (Fast food nation). Penguin Press (Omnivore’s dilemma)

WEBSITES
Animals
www.themeatrix.com
Fighting factory farms
www.eurogroupforanimals.org
Animal welfare in the EU

64

www.anthra.org
Livestock and sustainable resource use

www.iatp.org
Agriculture, food, globalizationand trade policy

Farming

http://goodfoodmarch.zs-intern.de
Good food, good farming campaign

www.viacampesina.org
Small scale farming

www.iucn.org/wisp
Sustainable pastoralism

www.familyfarmingcampaign.net
2014 International Year of Family
Farming

www.peta.org
Ethical treatment of animals

www.landmatrix.org
land and investment

www.arc2020.eu
Better EU rural policies
www.agrecol.de/?q=en/
Agriculture and ecology
www.fibl.org/en
Organic agriculture research

MEAT ATLASOFFICIAL REPORTS
and an unofficial answer

Support forsmallholders, 2013

FAO
report:Livestockin thebalance,2009

FAO report:
Livestock’s
long shadow,
2006
UNCTAD’s trade andenvironment review, 2013

FAO report:
Climate change
throughlivestock, 2013
Critical analysis: Livestockout of balance, 2012

MOVIES

Jean-Paul Jaud
about
Katharina von Flotow
agricultural
Lee Fulkerson praisingand Mirjam von Arx on
pesticides,
a whole food,keeping biodiversity, 2010 2008
plant-based diet, 2011

Robert Kenner’s
documentaryof corporate
Morgan Spurlock
farming in
exploring the fast foodthe USA, 2008 industry, 2004

Mark
MacInnison urbanfarming in
Detroit, 2011

Cover and poster copyrights © HLPE (Investing). UNCTAD (Review). FAO (FAO livestock reports). Paul Mundy (Livestock out of balance). Kathbur Pictures, ican films gmbh (Seed warriors).
J B Séquence (Nos enfants nous accuseront). Monica Beach (Forks over knives). Magnolia Pictures, Participant Media, River Road Entertainment (Food, inc.). The Con (Super size me). Tree Media Group (Urban roots).

www.pastoralpeoples.org
Pastoral peoples and endogenous
livestock
www.naturaljustice.org
Lawyers for communities and theenvironmentwww.moreandbetter.org
Food, agriculture, ruraldevelopmentwww.etcgroup.org
Impact of new technologies on thepoorestMEAT ATLAS

Food
www.worldvegfest.org
International Vegetarian Union
www.organicresearchcentre.com
Organic principles and bestpracticewww.eatseasonably.co.uk
What to eat and growwww.foe.co.uk/sustainablediets
Nutrition options
www.sustainablefoodtrust.org
The challenge to feed the world

www.theflexitarian.co.uk
Flexible vegetarians

www.slowfood.com
Pleasure of foodwww.eating-better.org
Alliance for less meat andbetter foodwww.boell.de/enwww.foeeurope.org

65

HEINRICH BÖLL FOUNDATION

Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung
Schumannstr. 8, 10117 Berlin, Germany, www.boell.de

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE

Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE)
Rue d’Edimbourg 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium, www.foeeurope.org

66

Fostering democracy and upholding humanrights, taking action to prevent the destruction of
the global ecosystem, advancing equality between
women and men, securing peace through conflict
prevention in crisis zones, and defending the freedom of individuals against excessive state and economic power – these are the objectives that drive
the ideas and actions of the Heinrich Böll Foundation. We maintain close ties to the German Green
Party (Alliance 90/The Greens) and as a think tankfor green visions and projects, we are part of an international network encompassing well over 160
partner projects in approximately 60 countries.
The Heinrich Böll Foundation works independently and nurtures a spirit of intellectual openness. We maintain a worldwide network withcurrently 30 international offices. The Heinrich
Böll Foundation’s Study Program considers itself
a workshop for the future; its activities include
providing support to especially talented students
and academicians, promoting theoretical work ofsociopolitical relevance.
We gladly follow Heinrich Böll’s exhortation
for citizens to get involved in politics, and we want
to inspire others to do the same.

Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) is the largest
grassroots environmental network in Europe,
uniting more than 30 national organisations withthousands of local groups.
We are the European arm of Friends of the
Earth International which unites 74 national
member organisations, some 5,000 local activist
groups, and over two million supporters aroundthe world.
We campaign on today‘s most urgent environmental and social issues. We challenge thecurrent model of economic and corporate globalization, and promote solutions that will help to create environmentally sustainable and socially justsocieties.
We advocate for an ecological and fair agriculture that protects wildlife and natural resources,
supports family farms, and reduces our impact on
developing countries.
We are engaged to protect biodiversity, reform the European Union‘s agriculture policy,
halt the growing of genetically modified crops
and prevent the expansion of agrofuels.
We play an active role in building a movement
for food sovereignty.
We work towards environmental, social, economic and political justice and equal access to resources and opportunities on the local, national,
regional and international levels.

MEAT ATLAS

015

North America

In-1.6large factory farms, pathogens canspread more quickly from one animal to another.
Commonwealthfrom ECONOMIES OF SCALE BUT LESS
DIVERSITY, page 13
of Independent
States2013
2009

6,000–6,500
South Americafrom THE CLIMATE COST
OF CATTLE, page 34

5000
4000

-0.9
Argentina

Middle East/
North Africa

1991

1996

3,600

Brazil
12

-12.8

0
2021

Total land outside EU used for soybeans, million hectares
16

14

1000

2019

+0.2

Paraguay

3000
2000

pig
sheep, goats

0.0

-2

Livestock directly or indirectly produce nearly-0.2
one-third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
beef, veal
poultry

Oceania

Asia

-6.4

2001

+0.1
2006

2011

2016
Sub-SaharanAfrica

2021

10

1,000

8

60

0

2

2001
In slaughterhouses, the battle for the lowest prices
is being fought on the workers’ backs.

from MAKING PRODUCTS FROM ANIMALS, page 14

On the world market, 25 percent of the beef isin fact now buffalo meat from India.
from THE RISE OF THE GLOBAL MARKET, page 10

1986
2005

2010