MLA calls out Courtney Facts - Are vegans right? ABC segment as biased and innacurate

The television segment, called Courtney Facts - Are vegans right?, aired on Wednesday and led with the question "is going plant-based better for the planet?".

"It's a simple yes if you look at environmental impact," the segment's host Courtney Act, who according to online reports is a vegan, goes on to say.

"The science tells us we're in the right because according to the UN, livestock accounts for 14.5 per cent of global greenhouse emissions. And those busy cows we've been talking about, well they're some of the worst culprits."

MLA slammed the blatant use of the public broadcaster's airspace by an individual to pedal their own agenda.

"It is deeply disappointing that the national broadcaster has been used as a platform by a vegan activist to push their anti-meat agenda by omitting some important facts and considerations about the vital role of red meat in the Australian food system," MLA said in a statement.

The ABC segment used animated illustrations of a cow burping as it relayed the pro-vegan argument and included interviews with Marco Springmann, a professor of climate change, food systems and health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and senior researcher on environment and health at the University of Oxford, England, as well as Nicole Diamon, an accredited dietician with Dieticians Australia.

Ms Diamon said "meat-based foods do contribute a lot of essential nutrients to our diet, including iron, zinc, calcium, iodine, long chain omega 3 fatty acids" and that a vegan diet can be unhealthy depending on dietary choices.

Prof Springmann, however, claimed livestock were responsible for a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, livestock products had the largest environmental impact, including emissions, water use and land use area, and encouraged viewers to become vegan for at least most days of the week.

MLA said the segment's graphs representing land use, water use and carbon were based on a report that estimated global numbers.

"The Australian numbers are vastly different, as is the context and relevance of these numbers," a spokesperson said.

"The TV report's numbers on carbon emissions do not accurately represent the Australian context. For example, graphs depicted in the report indicate the emissions intensity of beef to be about 100kg per kilogram of protein.

"In the industry, we typically report emissions per kilogram of liveweight, which is a different measure - but it is still clear that the TV segment is inaccurate for Australia.

"According to the Australian Beef Sustainability Report (p34), beef industry emissions are about 12kg of carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilogram liveweight."

Also read:

Sentencing to come for illegally clearing

Don't know who Shane Warne is? That's "un-Australian"

MLA also called out the program for cherry picking its information, saying the TV piece used "a very high percentile estimate from its source" despite the source report having explained there was a huge range of variability when it came to emissions.

"Importantly, the Australian red meat industry is making great progress with climate sustainability. Net emissions have reduced by almost 60pc since 2005, representing by far the greatest reduction by any sector of Australia's economy," the MLA spokesperson said.

"While Australian red meat industries contribute roughly 10pc of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions, emissions from livestock are different from burning fossil fuels and are part of a natural carbon cycle which over a 14-year time horizon emits little more carbon than is taken in by the plants that the livestock graze."

The criticism didn't end there. MLA also pointing out the program failed to distinguish between biogenic methane and methane produced from coal and gas production.

"The reality is Australian red meat is more than just good for you - the industry is also having a positive impact on the environment, with the goal of being carbon neutral by 2030," the spokesperson said.

"None of this is mentioned in the TV report."

On the issue of land and water use, it added that Australian red meat production occurred on vast areas of the continent, making use of land and water resources that could not be put to any other productive use.

"Just 3pc of Australia's agricultural land is suited to cropping. About one third of the crops fed to animals (as mentioned in the TV piece) are mostly by-products and not fit for human consumption.

"The 50pc of Australia's land mass (over 4.2 million square kilometres) used by the red meat industry is only suited to livestock, due to geographical climates, soils, and water scarcity.

"In the past five years alone, livestock producers have reduced the water used in raising beef cattle by more than 5pc to average 486 litres per liveweight kilogram.

"Eating fresh meat is less impactful to water scarcity than most other food groups, even cereals."

MLA said the TV report also did not discuss the difference between cow's milk and oat and soy milk in terms of nutritional density.

MLA said it was not contacted regarding any of the "so-called facts" cited in order to validate them in the Australian context.

The ABC said no complaint from Meat & Livestock Australia has been received by the ABC's ombudsman's office and no inaccuracies or errors have been raised.

"The segment is giving an international perspective, not just an Australian one, using international as well as domestic data and experts, and this would be clear to viewers," the broadcaster said in its response.