International Summit on The Societal Role of Meat – What the SCIENCE Says

A Texan, a reformed accountant, a farming politician and about 150 other scientists roll into Dublin. Not into the world-famous Temple Bar, but instead a food research station.

These makings of a bad joke were instead the biggest-ever assembly of academics advocating the science of meat, and what hopefully was a burgeoning point of unity across industry.

We have always, of course, been united in our main goal: for people to consume meat as part of a healthy diet.

Our reasons are solid. It’s nutrient-rich and the best source of protein, food waste is minimised and cattle contribute to a healthy environment. Meat is critical for cognitive development, it’s tasty and accessible, and the economics stack up.

But increasingly, we’ve had to string together a more cohesive and persuasive argument for why people should eat meat, necessitated by growing opposition.

It should be easy. Scientists by their very nature are objective and should be unbiased. So, theoretically (and admittedly simplistically) there should be universal agreement. If the science says something, that must be right. Right?

Yet, differing values, priorities, global needs, and findings have made an omelette of messaging, advice and caution, mixing misinformation with fact.

So, before we could most effectively go back to the public, a step back was needed. Why should we eat meat? How do we best contribute to society? What are the facts?

To address this, the International Meat Summit was broken into three controversies:

Diet and Health,

A Sustainable Environment, and

Society, Economics & Culture

Before rounding out with Conclusion and Next Steps.

It is perhaps unfair to single out speakers, but Professor Alice Stanton on ‘How much red meat is good for us’, which covered the GBD Data, was a hit.

Her obvious intellect and personability aside, delegates (especially those new to the cause) responded to the tangibility of her fight for the GBD Data study to be corrected in esteemed scientific journal, The Lancet. It’s a cause they can readily join.

Equally, Celso Moretti’s expertise on low-carbon technologies and their implementation was obvious.

The second session had the least consensus among delegates, perhaps a product of the nuanced issues and differing sustainability goals each country has. But Moretti’s presentation, ‘Low-carbon agriculture in Brazil: technologies and sustainability’, holds appeal that would transcend the four walls of the summit, languages and geographic differences.

Effectively arguing why eating meat isn’t wrong has arguably escaped some corners of industry, in so far as to cop comparisons such as “the new smoking.”

Yet in the third session, Professor Candace Croney, in an objective and persuasive way, laid out proven arguments the meat sector can use to justify and encourage consumption.

For example, she leaned on the Principle of Least Harm which says the consumption of large ruminants is actually the diet causing least harm, by virtue of minimal field animal deaths.

As Prof. Croney said, “I’m yet to hear anyone counter this argument.” It’s one that the ever-popular Diana Rodgers also oft presents.

Repeatedly raised over the two days was the need to involve both communications experts and younger people in the future. While true, the focus should be on that there will be a next time. Planning is already underway.

From here, the organising committee will scour every presentation, contribution made during discussion and feedback provided post-summit.

The presentations will be made available to those who request them, before a series of position papers are published in the first half of 2023 to develop ‘… a clear, scientific, evidence-based understanding of the impact of the livestock production and consumption in societies across the globe.’

It was also asked why a summit of this scale has not happened before, so endless credit goes to the organising committee for ensuring its success.

Peer Ederer et al. said, “the Summit will set the foundation of referenced science and a resulting global meat narrative toward 2030.”

Two operative words from this statement of intent stand out: Foundation and resulting. The Summit indeed provided foundations, but that only means there’s more to build. As such, the ‘resulting’ narrative is yet to be made.

Dr Nick Smith from the Riddet Institute asked towards the end of his presentation on the role of meat in our global nutrient supply, ‘Have we been asking the wrong question – instead of what food is most sustainable, should it be “what foods do humans need, and how does sustainability fit around that?”’

Possessing the brilliant mind that he does, Dr Smith was almost a step ahead of the Summit. We are united in our goal, we’re now on the same page with the science, and today our next step is pulling together messaging.

Which is the Global Meat Alliance’s purpose and where we’re proven leaders.  

We look forward to working with industry to forge our way forward.