“The hesitation to intervene in our food choices stands in stark contrast to the commonly accepted use of pricing strategies to reduce demand for [fossil] fuels, as well as tobacco and alcohol,” the Wageningen paper observes. “Interventions are needed to support consumer behavior toward more healthy and sustainable diets.”
Action should be targeted and nonintrusive, of course, given that “public steering [of] consumer behavior” remains “a socially and politically delicate matter.” Meat taxes, as Germany is planning, could be sound in theory and yet prove politically toxic. Rebalancing subsidies is a more subtle alternative: Over 80 percent of the CAP, for example, supports animal agriculture.
So too are educational campaigns, proper labeling and “indirect strategies such as binding agreements” with manufacturers and retailers.
4. We should consider deindustrializing animal husbandry
Most of Europe’s meat now comes from factory farms, which leak chemicals into soils and rivers, heighten the spread of animal diseases and antibiotic resistance, and violate animal welfare. Feed production “will also continue to compete with the production of crops suitable for human consumption.”
With that in mind, Wageningen’s researchers presented an “alternative vision for animal husbandry.” The plan involves much smaller herds raised in areas unsuitable for arable farming (like mountains) or close to zones with high waste streams (like processing, manufacturing or distribution facilities), to be fed on waste and “raw materials.”
“In this more circular approach, the primary role of animals would be to convert these non-human food streams, with the number of animals in a region determined by the availability of these resources,” the report said.
