If people want to eat soybeans and peas, why call it 'meat'?

Opinion: If people want to eat soybeans and peas, why call it 'meat'?


Opinion
Mal Peters argues that plant based meats are expensive to make and have very high sodium levels, which is a known heart attack inducer.

Mal Peters argues that plant based meats are expensive to make and have very high sodium levels, which is a known heart attack inducer.

Aa

If we are to solve the carbon emission dilemma, then agriculture is very much part of the solution.

Aa

The cacophony of noise from vegans and their opportunistic mates making a quid from Clayton meat tell us in breathless tones we must cease eating meat, but their story has a sprinkling of good old fashion bull dust about it.

To save the planet we must rush out and buy their vegan burger of soybeans and peas because the animal welfare and carbon emission will destroy the world.

The only problems is the companies flogging the product guild the lily with rhetoric not aligning with the facts.

Regardless of the half truths it is important we counter with the facts or lose domestic market share.

The catalyst to the current outcry is last week's report from UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has been totally misrepresented by the anti-meat brigade with the report stating "there is no way to keep global warming under 2 degrees without significant reduction in land sector emissions".

But it did go on to say "the land plays a vital role in the carbon cycle by absorbing greens house gas and releasing them being both part of the problem, but part of the solution as well".

Those seeking to make a buck out of the vegan craze are gilding the lily with two vegan brands publishing reports on the environmental footprint of their burgers, claiming they require 87 per cent less water, 96pc less land and produce 89pc less greenhouse emissions.

There are significant differences between the studies.

They are not expressed in the same units, therefore simplifying the results and not allowing for clear analysis, and both reports are based on US beef production (feedlots), which are much higher in emissions.

At the same time a third report from the White Oak farm study said cattle farms sequester so much carbon in the soil and vegetation, that they more than offset the emissions of cattle; a negative carbon footprint for example.

Their call to arms is shaky on a number of levels, so let's explore the practicality if every one stops eating meat and see if we can feed Australia on plant based diet.

Australia has a total land area of 7,687,124 square kilometres, nearly 8pc is indigenous, 15pc is protected and 15pc is termed "minimal use".

When analysing agricultural use there is 45pc natural grazing, 9pc modified grazing and only 4pc cropping, including irrigation.

As the IPCC clearly states, agriculture is part of the carbon capture solution and with 54pc of land held by the livestock sector their role will be of critical importance, particularly with soil carbon.

If people want to eat soybeans and peas, why are they compelled to call it "meat"? You would think that is the last thing the vegan brigade would call it.

If we are to solve the carbon emission dilemma then agriculture is very much part of the solution, ill-informed attacks are nothing more than vegan burger makers flogging their product.

Aa

From the front page

Sponsored by