Suggested climate action in the livestock sector might heighten the risks of pandemics and other health hazards | SEI

INSIGHT by the Stockholm Environment Center (SEI)

Animal agriculture negatively impacts the climate, public health and animal welfare, a group of experts argue in an article published yesterday in Frontiers in Animal Science. Improving one of these impacts risks making the other two worse, so authors of the recent study are urging policymakers to weigh the trade-offs between all of these major impacts.

Animal agriculture contributes an estimated 12%–20% of total global human-caused greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). These emissions must be steeply cut to meet global climate targets and curb planetary heating.

The international community is increasingly recognizing the need to combat animal agriculture emissions, with recent milestone publications from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Bank.

While welcoming growing attention to animal agriculture’s environmental impacts, experts now warn that some of the proposed measures can exacerbate public health and animal welfare concerns already associated with the sector.

The new article, “Climate change, public health, and animal welfare: towards a One Health approach to reducing animal agriculture’s climate footprint,” analyses seven common strategies often proposed to feed more people with a smaller carbon footprint, exploring their consequences or benefits for animal welfare, nutrition, antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic disease and the climate. This includes measures such as intensified animal farming practices, genetic selection for productivity, feed changes, and shifting from beef consumption to chicken, fishes, or insects. The strategies are examined with a “One Health” lens that considers human, animal, and environmental health, and seeks to reconcile each of these factors toward creating long-term and sustainable solutions.

“Policymakers and the private sector must look beyond emissions reductions in animal farming and consider policy implications for public health and animal welfare, since the implications can be positive, negative or mixed”, said Cleo Verkuijl, a Scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute and Visiting Researcher at the Brooks McCormick Animal Law & Policy Program at Harvard Law School. “For instance, a dietary shift from red meat to plant-based food can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve public health outcomes in high-income regions, whereas shifting from cattle to chickens would heighten or maintain risks of infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance from animal agriculture.”

The article finds that more plant-based diets or investing in alternative proteins, may offer a more promising path forward by helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously mitigating many public health risks and animal welfare concerns. However, inequitable access remains a concern.

Policymakers, international organizations and the financial sector need to coordinate to make informed decisions on animal agriculture. Integrating climate, health, and animal welfare considerations into financial decisions can promote more responsible and sustainable investment.

“It is irresponsible to ignore pandemic and other health threats such as avian influenza and resistance to antibiotics when pursuing climate policies in the agricultural sector,” said Maria José Hötzel, Professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina. “Policymakers and scientists need to approach this transition in an interdisciplinary way to minimize trade-offs and maximize synergies.”

Experts from the Stockholm Environment Institute, Harvard University, Utrecht University, New York University and Federal University of Santa Catarina produced this article.