Lesson: Can we justify the environmental impact of meat

consumption?
Article 1 by GreenPeace, an Environmental Campaign
Group
The vast majority of meat bought in the UK is produced in
intensive factory farms. These farms are part of a destructive
global system of mass-produced industrial meat and dairy.
This system is driven by supermarkets like Tesco, Sainsbury’s
and Asda; as well as fast food chains like KFC, Burger King
and McDonald’s. Many of these household names buy from
companies owned by JBS – the largest meat processing
company in the world. Through its meat production, JBS
produces around half the carbon emissions of fossil fuel giants
such as Shell or BP, and is driving deforestation in the
Amazon.
The industrial meat system requires a huge amount of land to
sustain itself. Forests, particularly in South America, are
deliberately slashed and burned every year to graze cattle and
grow enough crops to feed billions of farmed animals.

95% of UK chicken is produced in industrial farms like this

one. Almost three million chickens are consumed in the UK
every day.
Here’s why industrial meat is so bad for people and the planet:

1. It causes deforestation and forest fires

Industrial meat is the single biggest cause of deforestation
globally. In Brazil, farmers are deliberately setting forest fires
– like the Amazon rainforest fires you may have seen in the
news – to clear space for cattle ranching and to grow
industrial animal feed, like soya, for farms back in the UK.

Forest fires are set deliberately to clear land for grazing or to

grow huge volumes of animal feed.

2. It causes climate change

The climate impact of meat is enormous – roughly equivalent
to all the driving and flying of every car, truck and plane in
the world.
When forests are destroyed to produce industrial meat,
billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide are released into the
atmosphere, accelerating global warming. The fallen trees are
often left to rot on the forest floor or are burned, creating
further emissions.
Healthy trees are essential for absorbing carbon from the
atmosphere. If we cut them down, they can no longer help us
in the fight against climate change.

3. It’s pushing the Amazon rainforest closer to a tipping point

Trees in the Amazon rainforest produce their own rainfall,
which keeps the whole forest alive and healthy. If
deforestation (for things like industrial meat) continues at the
current rate, the Amazon could reach a ‘tipping point’, where
it can no longer sustain itself as a rainforest.
This would have a devastating impact on the people and
animals who live in, or depend on, the forest directly. It could
also lead to less rainfall, affecting drinking water and
irrigation across large parts of South America; and changes to
climate patterns in other parts of the world too.

4. It’s responsible for human rights abuses and land-grabbing

Indigenous People and traditional communities – like the
geraizeira communities in Brazil – are at the frontline in the
fight to protect forests. An investigation by Greenpeace Brazil
showed that security forces working for soya producer
Agronegócio Estrondo harassed, detained, abducted and shot
members of the traditional geraizeira communities.
Meanwhile, President Bolsonaro and his government tacitly
encourage illegal loggers, miners and farmers to occupy
Indigenous lands, by rolling back historic regulations and
trying to legalise land-grabbing. Land invasions often become
violent and loggers have killed Indigenous People in these
conflicts. Mass meat producer, JBS, has been repeatedly
linked to suppliers who operate illegally on protected
Indigenous lands.
Cattle ranches and soya producers in Brazil have a history of
profiting from modern day slavery. That includes suppliers to
JBS (the meat processing giant). JBS’ abattoirs have been
linked to terrible working conditions, mass outbreaks of
Covid-19 and salmonella-ridden chicken exports.

Small-scale organic farmer Dona Jô and her son João

(pictured) – from the state of Acre, Brazil – lost everything
but their house in the 2019 forest fires.

5. It’s killing wildlife

By clearing forests, destroying habitats and using toxic
pesticides to grow animal food, the industrial meat industry is
contributing to the extinction of thousands of species, many of
which haven’t even been discovered yet.
We depend on a healthy environment for our own survival.
The huge abundance and variety of the natural world
(sometimes called biodiversity) is essential for food, clean
water and medicines. The rapid loss of biodiversity, largely
driven by industrial farming, could be as big a threat to our
existence as climate change.

Jaguars are dying out, having lost nearly 38% of their habitat
in Brazil. They’re classified as ‘near threatened’ by the
International Union for Conservation of Nature.

6. It’s increasing the risk of future pandemics like Covid-19

Destroying forests and other wild areas for animal agriculture
is a major cause of new infectious diseases. Three quarters of
new diseases affecting humans come from animals. Cutting
down and burning forests brings wildlife into closer contact
with people, enabling deadly viruses to pass from animals to
humans. The more forest that is destroyed, the greater the risk
of a new pandemic.
But that’s not the only disease risk from industrial meat.
Factory farms can also increase the spread of disease, both
between animals and from animals to humans. The risk is
higher for industrial meat farms because huge numbers of
animals are crammed into small spaces, and the animals
themselves have weaker immune systems. This means that
viruses can develop more rapidly and have the potential to
pass to humans.
7. It’s an inefficient way to eat
Companies sometimes argue that industrial meat is an
efficient way to produce food, but this ignores its true costs.
Over a quarter of the world’s entire land area is used to graze
or grow food for farm animals – food that could have been
eaten by people in the first place. Just 1kg of chicken meat
takes 3.2kg of crops to produce.
If everyone ate a plant-based diet, we’d need 75% less
farmland than we use today. That’s an area equivalent to the
US, China, Europe and Australia combined. That’s because it
takes less land to grow food directly for humans, than to feed
animals, which humans then eat.

This article uses the following types of evidence at least once:

● Statistics. These are the measure of something expressed
numerically, usually as a percentage, ratio, rate,
proportion or fraction.
● References to Reports/Investigations. These reports and
investigations, will usually be conducted by a named
organisation or individual e.g. Greenpeace
● Links to Articles/Webpages: these are usually URLs
provided as sources of information and are often featured
in online articles as a hyper-link so will be in blue.
● Examples/Case Studies: These will be specific
examples from recognised companies and organisations.
● Expert Opinions/Claims: These will be statements or
quotations from named people or organisations who are
considered experts in the subject matter discussed in the
article. When the article itself is written by an expert they
can appear throughout the article.
● Generalizations: Broad statements that are often not
supported by reference to specific people, organizations
or statistics.
Class Task 1

Find an example of each type of evidence in Article 1

● Statistics.

● References to Reports/Investigations.

● Links to Articles/Webpages:

● Examples/Case Studies:

● Expert Opinions/Claims:

● Generalizations:

Article 2 by The Soil Association a body that represents farmers.

Meat and climate change are regularly in the headlines.

But is all meat bad for the planet? How does eating meat affect the climate?

What we choose to eat is a deeply personal decision.

However, it is becoming increasingly clear that our diets need
to change to support a sustainable future.
In the face of the interlinked crises of climate change, wildlife
decline and diet-related ill-health, we need to change the way
we eat and consider where our food comes from.

Discover the information:

● Should I stop eating meat?
● Should I become vegan to help the environment?
● Beef and the Environment
● Should I just switch to chicken?
● Animal feed and climate change?
● The role of grazing animals
● Can sustainable farming feed the world?
● What can I do?
Should I stop eating meat?

There is no quick answer to this. Yes, we must reduce our

meat intake and stop eating meat that’s been intensively
farmed - where animals are kept indoors and bred to grow
abnormally quickly. But you don’t need to stop eating meat
altogether (not if you don’t want to).
There is an important role for sustainably produced meat in
the diet, for those that want to eat it.
Should I become vegan to help the environment?

Whether you’re a meat-eater, vegetarian or vegan, the dietary

choices you make have an impact.
Thinking carefully about where your food comes from will
help reduce any negative impacts on our climate, our
environment and our health.
This could mean:
● Eating less meat overall and incorporating more plant
proteins.
● Not eating meat that’s been intensively farmed.
● Choosing climate and nature-friendly meat, produced to
higher welfare standards. This includes local, grass-fed
and higher welfare meat like organic.
The environmental impacts of farming are complicated. The
best methods of farming produce fewer gases that contribute
to climate change. They also help to protect wildlife and keep
soils healthy.
On these agroecological or organic farms, farm animals can
play an important role.
A diet that includes this type of meat can have a positive
impact - on the environment, farm animal welfare and your
health.

Beef and the Environment

Cows and sheep, due to their complex digestive systems, burp

out more methane gas than other farm animals. Methane is a
very powerful but short-lived greenhouse gas that contributes
to climate change.
However, not all meat is created equal. Meat production
methods vary hugely across the globe and have different
climate impacts.
Intensive feedlot cow farms, more common in the USA, keep
a very large number of animals in relatively small areas. It is
argued that large herds of fast-growing cows have less climate
impact, mainly because they live shorter lives.
But, although they live for a shorter time, these farms aim to
raise more cows. The more beef that’s produced, the more
methane that will be released.
The picture is bigger than methane too; intensive farms can be
pollution hotspots. They rely on lots of water and grain crops
for animal feed. Producing this grain uses land that could be
used for human food crops.
In the UK, the scale of intensive farming is not quite as
extreme as many of the farms in the USA, although the
number of ‘intensive’ UK farms is growing fast.
At the other end of the scale, organic and grass-fed farming
methods have been found to have many positive
environmental impacts. In other words – it’s not the cow, it’s
the how.
Should I just switch to chicken?

No. It is often said that white meat is better for the planet
because chickens and pigs do not produce as much methane as
cows. This has led some people to opt for chicken instead of
beef in their weekly shop. In fact, almost all growth in UK
meat consumption is chicken.
However, chicken and pork farming commonly has a negative
impact on the environment, often as a result of the feed they
eat.
Animal feed and climate change?

Growing animal feed like soya takes up large areas of land.

Rainforests and wildlife-rich land in places like Latin America
are often destroyed to make space for this. Trees capture gases
like carbon dioxide. This stops the gases building up in the
atmosphere and warming our planet.
Deforestation stops trees from continuing to capture carbon
and is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions
in farming. It also has huge impacts on the animals and plants
that rely on these habitats to survive.
However, not all animal feed has to come from areas linked to
deforestation or damaging land-use change. Grains for animal
feed can be grown here in the UK. Chickens actually consume
the equivalent of half of the UK wheat crop.
But this has drawbacks too. Using fertile land to produce
animal feed means less space to plant trees, grow food for
humans to eat or graze livestock.
Currently, we waste lots of food, but there are opportunities
for surplus food to be used for animal feed. This would be
beneficial for lots of reasons; it would:
● recycle food waste,
● prevent landfill greenhouse gas emissions and
 ● keep the food on the farm,
providing a climate-friendly diet for pigs and chickens.
So, as you can see, it is not as straightforward as saying that
‘chicken is better for the environment because they don’t
produce as much methane as cows’.
Emissions don’t just come directly from the animals
themselves, their food production also plays a big part.
The vast majority of farmed pigs and chickens rely wholly on
grains and oilseeds, with no grass in their diets. When grazing
on grass, animals like cows and sheep have been shown to
deliver benefits to the environment.

The role of grazing animals

Grazing animals play an important role in nature-friendly

farming systems. They:
1. Help lock carbon in the soil
Soil holds three times more carbon than the atmosphere, and
organic systems which include grazing animals have been
shown to hold more carbon on average than non-organic soils.
Diverse grasslands don’t just provide food for livestock, they
also provide homes for lots of different types of wildlife
including bees, birds and butterflies. They enhance the
wildlife in soil itself too!
2. Reduce the need for chemical fertilisers
As they graze, animals spread their manure across fields
helping spread fertility across the farm. This ‘feeds’ nutrients
to the plants and organisms in the soil, improving soil health.
Without animals, most farmers rely on chemical fertilisers to
feed their crops. These fertilisers are normally made from
fossil fuels and can damage the soil. They’re bad news for
climate too. When they react with oxygen, they produce
nitrous oxide - a greenhouse gas that is 300 times worse for
the climate than carbon dioxide!
Grazing animals can limit these impacts. They recycle
nutrients on the farm more effectively, without the need for
chemical fertilisers.
Can sustainable farming feed the world?

Recent research has modelled a future where sustainable

farming can feed the world.
It finds that Europe can feed a growing population a healthy,
largely organic diet without relying on imported food.
To achieve this, we must end reliance on imported animal
feed, eat less and better meat and support farmers in the UK
and abroad to adopt nature and climate-friendly farming
methods like organic.
What can I do?

To realise this future, we all need to support organic and

agroecological farmers.
Class Task 2

Identify which of the types of evidence used in Article 1

are also used in Article 2

● Statistics. Y/N
● References to Reports/Investigations. Y/N
● Links to Articles/Webpages: Y/N
● Examples/Case Studies: Y/N
● Expert Opinions/Claims: Y/N
● Generalizations: Y/N

Other types of evidence/argument used in Article 2

Article 2 is written in defence of the farming industry, so it is

a bit like being in opposition to a debate motion. This means
that part of what it is doing is anticipating criticism/arguments
against. For this reason it is likely to use other kinds of
evidence/argument compared to Article 1. These include:

Comparison and Contrast: This will often involve

acknowledging a problem/issue but suggesting that it is not as
bad as, or is in some other way different to, the way that it is
presented by opponents. For example: “"Yes, we must
reduce our meat intake and stop eating meat that’s been
intensively farmed..." vs. "There is an important role for
sustainably produced meat…” This argument acknowledges
that there is a problem caused by cattle farming but makes a
comparison between intensive farming and sustainable
farming to argue that it is the type of farming that is the
problem, rather than the farming itself.

Cause and Effect: Again this is often a defensive type of

evidence/argument that acknowledges a problem/issue
(usually the effect) but seeks to deflect blame/responsibility
for it by examining its cause. For example: “Without animals,
most farmers rely on chemical fertilisers to feed their crops.
These fertilisers are normally made from fossil fuels and can
damage the soil. They’re bad news for climate too. When they
react with oxygen, they produce nitrous oxide - a greenhouse
gas that is 300 times worse for the climate than carbon
dioxide!” This argument acknowledges that there is a problem
with human impact on climate change (effect) but argues that
this could be made worse if farmers no longer raise animals
for meat (cause).

Class Debate
The motion for today’s debate is:

I will be speaking in _______________________________ to

the motion.

I have been assigned the following role(s):

Guidance for each role in the debate:

Opening Statement
● Start with a hook to grab the audience's attention (e.g., a
rhetorical question, startling statistic, or a brief
anecdote).
● Introduce yourself and state your position (affirmative or
negative).
● Outline the main points on your side of the argument.

Main Argument
● Point 1: State your first main point clearly.
○ Provide evidence to support your point (e.g., facts,
statistics, examples, expert opinions).
 ○ Explain how this evidence supports your argument.
● Point 2: State your second main point clearly.
○ Provide evidence to support your point.
○ Explain how this evidence supports your argument.
● Point 3: State your third main point clearly.
○ Provide evidence to support your point.
○ Explain how this evidence supports your argument.
Repeat for further points if necessary.
Rebuttal
● Acknowledge the opposing side's arguments.
● Refute their points with counter-arguments and evidence.
● Explain why your side's arguments are stronger.