Diana Rodgers ‘COP27 Summary’

I’m just back from the GRSB Communicator’s Summit in Denver and COP27 and after a week of recovery, am back in the office and on the road, headed to the Kansas Livestock Association Convention then to the Missouri Livestock Symposium to present their keynote speech. I’m excited to be updating my presentations for 2023 to make them more emotionally compelling. I recently met with a woman who coaches TED speakers, and she gave me some great objective pointers on how to present my information in a way that will really move people. We all know the facts are on our side, but how to best sway people’s hearts is still something that I think that pro-livestock voices have not mastered. I’ll be pulling in more specific examples on why policies that vilify meat are harming both farmers and people as I build my speaking schedule for 2023.  

I was fascinated by the consumer research presented by Pollinate at the GRSB event. It’s no surprise that the people rejecting meat are primarily doing so for personal moral reasons: they simply think it’s wrong to raise animals for food. However, this is a very small percentage of the population and in my opinion, not worth anyone’s time to try to sway. I was much more intrigued by what motivates “reducers” to cut down on their meat consumption. The primary reasons given were price and health. As a dietitian, I was excited to hear this because I feel that health and value per nutrient are easy cases to win. These two talking points will be my main communications focus for the first half of 2023. 

Climate was not one of the main drivers motivating consumers, however based on what I saw at COP27, this seems to be a main driver for policy shifts. So, it seems like we have two separate campaigns to win – one is a health and value for consumers on the fence about whether to buy meat, and the second is to convince policymakers to remove their “carbon tunnel vision” googles and recognize the contribution livestock make to human nutrition, food security, rural livelihoods, and why taxes or other policies discouraging meat will cause more harm than good.  

Eric Mittenthal (NAMI), Adegbola Adesogan, Ph. D, Diana Rodgers, Muhammad Ibrahim, Ph. D

At COP, I tried to emphasize the critical role livestock play in food security and in solving nutrient deficiencies, which are not only an issue in low- and middle-income countries. Pointing to Ty Beal’s work at GAIN, I highlighted the following three main concepts: 

• Animal-sourced foods are the only or best source of many of the nutrients of concern. The leading micronutrient deficiencies are: iron, zinc, folate, vitamin A, vitamin D, and B12. Worldwide, 1 in 2 children and 2 in 3 women have at least one micronutrient deficiency, wreaking havoc on immune systems, hindering growth and development, and limiting human potential, all of which will have climate implications. These deficiencies are not limited to low- and middle-income countries. Iron deficiency alone impacts 1 in 5 women in the US, where we’re told to eat less meat, which is the best source of iron.

• Because livestock can “up-cycle” nutrient poor food (food scraps, waste from the plant-protein industry, and grains) into protein, iron, B12 and other critical nutrients, they are a net win for our food system.

• In the Global South, livestock is critical to wellbeing. 12% of the world’s population rely solely on livestock for their livelihood. Women in ½ of the countries in the world are unable to own land, but in many cases, they can own livestock, improving gender equality and household nutrition. In many places, livestock are a climate and resilience solution for many smallholder farmers because livestock are also less susceptible to drought or extreme weather.

It is concerning that COP27 is mostly privileged people with the means to push away nutritious food like meat pushing policies to limit access to nutrients in meat, which is also a culturally appropriate food to most. 

If we do not have a nutritious food system that provides people with the nutrients they need to be healthy and develop properly, how will we ever meet the UNs Sustainable Development Goals?

The livestock and the industrial food industry does have its problems - we need better environmental practices, better grazing practices, and better animal welfare. However, arguments like “less meat, better meat” are elitist and harmful. It is unethical to tell people to only eat grass-fed/regenerative meat or don’t eat meat at all. Has your doctor ever told you to “only eat organic vegetables or don’t eat vegetables”?

I was also very impressed by a presentation on circular economies and especially about the story of leather. I think more consumers need to be made aware of how we are putting about 150 million hides into landfills every year when this is a natural, durable, and sustainable product. I also would encourage the meat industry to work more closely with the leather industry to push back against both fake meat AND fake leather.

You can see my slides here, which were the #1 trending post on twitter that day for the #COP27 hashtag. I think now is the time to really start planning on the strategy for COP28 to make sure livestock is well represented by credible scientists and has an upfront seat at the conference.