The Societal Role of Meat: Input into the Rhetoric and Dialogue
Sacramento Workshop - a summary
In September 2022, selected global livestock leaders, in partnership with the Global Meat Alliance and the World Butchers’ Challenge, explored the most topical thematics surrounding the global meat sector through an evidence-based lens at a workshop in Sacramento, California.
The feedback, ideas and messages generated at The Societal Role of Meat: Input into Rhetoric and Dialogue were delivering inaugural insights into, and gave preliminary guidance to a globally influential set of position papers to be developed at the International Meat Science Summit 2022: The Societal Role of Meat, What the Science Says, to be held in Dublin in October 2022.
Below is a summary of the workshop. In there are questions that remain unanswered, messages unmoulded and issues that need further fleshing out. But these initial discussions are exactly that – just the first iterations of what will be a comprehensive set of policy papers, and even more importantly, an on-going and widening effort to shape messages on the many societal benefits of meat.
There were three key topics discussed:
-
The nutritional benefits of meat consumption are plentiful, and the nutrients and benefits it provides are necessary for human health and function.
While the benefits are endless, consumers have concerns and questions, and the meat industry faces challenges. This includes price, welfare, perceived health concerns, food safety and industry image.
How we provide this information to the public is of critical importance, but of course it must be tailored both from its source and to its intended audience.
As the way the world consumes information, there are endless – and ever-evolving – ways to show the facts, including through social media, health professionals, producers, and more.
While this undoubtedly presents challenges, so too are there emerging opportunities, such as increased meat consumption through the COVID-19 Pandemic. From that the global meat sector can work to take advantage of new social medias, trending events such as the World Butchers’ Challenge, cause-based marketing and more.
Overall, however, there was a perceived distrust of institutions. For example, it was discussed that levy bodies are not trusted sources, to which the entire room agreed. Further, there was agreement that there has been a demonstrable history of governments making poor policies that hinder farmer morale and harm their interests.
The number one issue to address?
Education. People believe the World Health Organisation promotes a message of meat causing cancer. So, from this comes a need to promote the nutrition benefits of meat, which could come in the form of positive benefits of meat on labels, as well as other simple messaging that is best exemplified by: it’s a real food vs. fake meat conversation.
-
Livestock production and meat consumption are often unfairly maligned for disproportionately contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Undoubtedly, this has contributed to a negative narrative of meat.
While a challenge, there is also much information and data to tell the truth and swing the narrative back in favour of meats and livestock. In all communication, integrity is key to its effectiveness, and this will be no different to a positive image for the global meat sector.
From the workshop came a need to talk about the benefits industry’s production can have for the environment, including a focus on water and microclimates, as well as biodiversity (to which COP15 can play a role) and wildlife habitats.
Much of the negative rhethoric about livestock production – namely beef – rides on methane emissions, however we must avoid a “tunnel vision” approach to engaging in this topic.
This is not the only issue that needs addressing. Others discussed include:
• Waste: increased messaging on ‘nose to tail’ could help address this
• Methane: Is modelled, not measured. Recent empirical data may put cattle into a much more positive light
• Soil carbon: To what degree is this a solution?
• Ethics and welfare: Is the industry inherently on an ethical backfoot because it requires “killing”, and if so, what can be done about it? Be transparent about this inevitable fact, or try to hide it?
• Income: A product that is “elite but not elitist”
• Multiple fronts: Should the global meat sector focus its efforts on one dimension or across all relevant ones?
-
Like discussions of diet and health, and a sustainable environment, considerations of the economics and ethical considerations of eating meat can be divisive and multi-faceted. Much is argument-inducing, such as land mass use by livestock, regenerative agriculture and the environment, real vs alternative meat products, and socioeconomic effects.
Just as similarly, there are many good stories to tell of meat. It can be a driver for change – a positive impact on the environment, it supports families at every level, on different incomes. Much of the meat production process involves local communities how are invested in is local , supporting sustainability, food and nutrition security, local business and more. Meat plays an important cultural role in family gatherings, holidays, and important civic events.
May of the most commonly cited concerns with meat consumption are generated in the developed countries with no considerations to those areas for whom food security is paramount.
There is much to discuss. And perhaps no bigger topic than the emergence of cultured meat and other plant based alternatives and analogues. It provokes many questions and concerns including: why and how it will resonate with consumers? What’s the cost? Do people want meat but see this as an alternative to animal slaughter or environmental considerations? Is it a viable alternative?
Conclusion
Policy is fundamental to healthy, sustainable and productive food production. On the other side of that, however, is a positive narrative, sharing the stories of the many benefits of livestock production and meat consumption to the world.
Communication is key to progressing industry’s image, and central to that is integrity of the message. The nutrition argument should be for “real” and “delicious” nutritious food. The environmental argument should avoid overly focusing on emissions and promote the ecological benefits, but in a simple way. People want meat but they don’t want animals to suffer, which is why cultured meat could be a huge threat.
Finally, the messenger can be the difference, especially to target audiences such as young women, what will resonate with them the best, and who should deliver this message.
These discussions are the inaugural insights into the position papers to be developed at the International Meat Science Summit 2022. While there are questions unanswered, messages unmoulded and issues to be addressed, this has helped shaped a changing, positive narrative.