Diana Rodgers - April Update

Some exciting new research has come out that I’d like to share with you. The first and most groundbreaking is by Pablo Manzano, a Spanish ecologist who I met in Dublin at the International Meat Summit. 

Cattle an “Effective Substitute” for Wild Grazers: Comparable GHG emissions from animals in wildlife and livestock-dominated savannas shows that well managed livestock serve the same ecological niche as wild grazing animals. I just recorded a podcast with Pablo which came out April 25 and can be found via my website or on on my youtube channel.

The researchers state that cattle are "an effective substitute” for wild grazers. This further proves my stance that "re-wilding” is a not-so-great idea, because it eliminates an important, nutrient-dense food source for a growing human population with no substantial benefit to ecosystems. We can replicate the same positive impact that wild grazers have on the environment with pastoralism, and because many places have lost the large expanses of land and predators required for the right movement of wild animals, cattle ranching is likely the best option in many ecosystems.

I'm hoping this paper gets the media attention it deserves, and that this message makes it to policymakers. The halo over deer, moose and wildebeests while vilifying cattle ranching is simply a fallacy. I wonder what rewinding advocate George Monbiot will say when he reads this…

On the podcast, Pablo and I talk about what is needed for effective wildlife management and he pointed out to me that predator pressure is not the main driver for movement of grazing animals. Because predators are territorial animals, a lion for example, would never move into another lion’s territory. Instead, what really motivates herds to move is the search for food. I asked him if he’s studied any areas other than the serengeti and he mentioned that there’s an area in northern span with wild grazers and no predators, but the grazing is in balance because there’s both plains and mountains, so the animals move according to the seasonal availability of food. This was new to me, and maybe for some of you reading, too. 

We also discussed how a move to reduce pastoralism/ranching is a threat to food sovereignty. Of course there are better and worse ways to manage the cattle, and we need to work with ranchers on better management, but to tax livestock producers for methane production (New Zealand) or to eliminate large amounts of livestock (Ireland) is misguided and will simply hurt rural communities and reduce an important source of food and income for people. A move to more lab meat means centralized food production to profit the tech-elite investors, who are selling the promise of lab meat as a way to provide the future of food. 

Recently, one of my major donors asked what I thought of the Bezos Earth Fund. After visiting their website, it’s clear that he doesn’t get it. I was disturbed to read about his substantial grant to the Good Food Institute for alt-protein research and to encourage more policy to support alt-proteins. The following quote is from the site:

The reality is, nothing could be further from the truth. Reducing livestock will hurt food resilience because these companies are trying to patent entire verticals, and remove humans from the production equation. Alt-meat relies on industrially produced mono-crops, fossil fuels, heavy chemicals, and energy intensive production technologies. 

More Cows, Less Chicken Will Reduce Emissions: The second paper I’m excited about is: A 12% switch from monogastric to ruminant livestock production can reduce emissions and boost crop production for 525 million people

This one shows that switching monogastric animal agriculture to ruminant could reduce emissions and boost crop production. This study argues that ruminant agriculture has unique benefits that other forms of animal agriculture don't.

As human activity further expands, it’s critical that we realize that livestock production is a net benefit, both for food and for managing healthy ecosystems. Grazing animals can utilize human-inedible biomass through foraging and straw feedstock. 

“Switching 12% of global livestock production from monogastric to ruminant livestock could reduce nitrogen emissions by 2% and greenhouse gas emissions by 5% due to land use change and lower demand for cropland areas for ruminant feed. The output from released cropland could feed up to 525 million people worldwide. More ruminant products, in addition to optimized management, would generate overall benefits valued at US$468 billion through reducing adverse impacts on human and ecosystem health, and mitigating climate impacts.”

This also is why I’m against products like lab-meat, because it assumes grazing livestock is inherently destructive and instead uses extractive monocrops and A LOT of energy to produce meat, when we can produce it with little to no inputs, on uncroppable land without labs, while also improving ecosystems. If we redirected the massive amounts of money going into lab-grown meat and other unproven ventures into proven animal agriculture, we would see massive improvements in many facets.

Italy bans lab meat: The Italian government approved a bill banning the use of laboratory-produced food and animal feed to safeguard the country's agri-food heritage. I think the idea of lab grown food negatively affecting tradition and the livelihood of many people is an important perspective. As a government official there says, "Laboratory products in our opinion do not guarantee quality, well-being and the protection of our culture, our tradition."

Mammoth Meatballs: The other interesting piece was an article in the Guardian about a lab-grown meat company producing a mammoth meatball. This article argues that lab-grown meat is the solution for the future. My concerns are that its safety isn't well known, it still uses lots of energy, and discounts the beneficial impact animal agriculture can provide on ecosystem health. I think profits are driving this craze, not health, sustainability or ethics.

High Protein Diets For the Win: Effects of different weight loss dietary interventions on body mass index and glucose and lipid metabolism in obese patients was an interesting study showing that a high protein diet outperformed caloric restriction and intermittent fasting for weight loss, body fat percentage and blood lipids - yet another reason to eat meat!

Sugary Breakfast Cereals for Sleep? "Food makers push ‘sleep’ snacks at night." Sugary breakfast cereal companies are now promoting their products as a good way to improve sleep. It makes me laugh, but what's sad is it will likely succeed in convincing many people. I can confirm that these products will in fact NOT help you sleep better. Check out the article here.

Diana Rodgers, RD