How crop gene editing increases nutrition and sustainability

If our planet Earth is to continue feeding us in the future, rich countries must significantly reduce their meat consumption - ideally by at least 75 percent. This is the conclusion of a new study by the University of Bonn. The study reviews the current state of research on various aspects of meat consumption. In addition to the effects on the environment and climate, these include health and economic effects. A conclusion of the researchers: Eating meat in small amounts can be quite sustainable. The results are published in the journal Annual Review of Resource Economics. Every EU citizen consumes around 80 kilograms of meat per year. But every juicy steak, every delicious sausage has a price that we do not pay at the counter, because livestock farming damages the climate and the environment. Ruminants for instance produce methane, which accelerates global warming. Animals also convert only a portion of the calories they are fed into meat. In order to feed the same number of people, meat therefore requires a much larger land area. This is to the detriment of ecosystems, as less space is left for natural species conservation. Furthermore, those eating too much meat live risky – meat in excess is not healthy and can promote chronic diseases. So there are good reasons for significantly reducing consumption of animal-based foods. If all humans consumed as much meat as Europeans or North Americans, we would certainly miss the international climate targets and many ecosystems would collapse. We therefore need to significantly reduce our meat consumption, ideally to 20 kilograms or less annually. The war in Ukraine and the resulting shortages in international markets for cereal grains also underline that less grain should be fed to animals in order to support food security." Prof. Dr. Matin Qaim, study author, Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn
At present, around half of all grains produced worldwide are used as animal feed, Qaim said. Mass vegetarianism is not the best solution
Would it not be better for humankind to switch completely to vegetarian or, even better, vegan diets? According to the study, this would be the wrong consequence. On the one hand, there are many regions where plant-based foods cannot be grown. "We can't live on grass, but ruminants can," clarifies Qaim's colleague and co-author Dr. Martin Parlasca. "Therefore, if grassland cannot be used in any other way, it makes perfect sense to keep livestock on it." Related Stories
From an environmental point of view, there is also no real objection to careful grazing with a limited number of animals. Poorer regions in particular also lack plant sources of high-quality proteins and micronutrients. For instance, vegetables and legumes cannot be grown everywhere and, moreover, can be harvested only at certain times of the year. "In such cases, animals are often a key element of a healthy diet," Parlasca points out. "For many people, they are also an important source of income. If the revenue from milk, eggs and meat is lost, this can threaten their livelihoods." In any case, the poorer countries are not the problem, the authors point out. For their inhabitants, meat is usually much less frequently on the menu than in industrialized nations. This means that the rich countries in particular must reduce their meat consumption. Tax on meat products makes sense
At the moment, there is little sign of this. Although there are more vegetarians than before, aggregate meat consumption is stagnating across Europe. However, it is highest in North America and Australia. Qaim believes it is important to also consider higher taxes on animal-based foods. "That's certainly unpopular, especially since a ten- or twenty-percent surcharge probably wouldn't be enough, if it's supposed to have a steering effect," he says. "Meat, however, has a high environmental cost that is not reflected in current prices. It would be entirely reasonable and fair to have consumers share more of these costs." The authors also call for the topic of "sustainable consumption" to be increasingly integrated into school curricula. These contents should also be better included into the training of future teachers. "We need to become more sensitive to the global impact of our decisions," emphasizes Qaim, who is also a member of the PhenoRob Cluster of Excellence and (like his colleague Martin Parlasca) of the Transdisciplinary Research Area (TRA) "Sustainable Futures" at the University of Bonn. "This is true not only with food, but also with the shirt we buy at the discount store to wear for a single evening at a party." Source:

Rich countries must reduce meat consumption by at least 75%, study suggests

But research shows the industry, in small quantities, can be quite sustainable. Apr 26th, 2022
Every European Union citizen consumes around 80 kilograms (176 pounds) of meat per year. But every juicy steak, every delicious sausage has a price that we do not pay at the counter, because livestock farming damages the climate and the environment. Ruminants, for instance, produce methane, which accelerates global warming. Animals also convert only a portion of the calories they are fed into meat. In order to feed the same number of people, meat therefore requires a much larger land area. This is to the detriment of ecosystems, as less space is left for natural species conservation. Furthermore, those eating too much meat live risky – meat in excess is not healthy and can promote chronic diseases. So there are good reasons for significantly reducing consumption of animal-based foods. "If all humans consumed as much meat as Europeans or North Americans, we would certainly miss the international climate targets and many ecosystems would collapse," said study author Dr. Matin Qaim of the Center for Development Research at the University of Bonn. "We therefore need to significantly reduce our meat consumption, ideally to 20 kilograms or less annually. The war in Ukraine and the resulting shortages in international markets for cereal grains also underline that less grain should be fed to animals in order to support food security.”
At present, around half of all grains produced worldwide are used as animal feed, Qaim said. Mass vegetarianism is not the best solution
Would it not be better for humankind to switch completely to vegetarian or, even better, vegan diets? According to the study, this would be the wrong consequence. On the one hand, there are many regions where plant-based foods cannot be grown. "We can't live on grass, but ruminants can," clarified Qaim's colleague and co-author Dr. Martin Parlasca. "Therefore, if grassland cannot be used in any other way, it makes perfect sense to keep livestock on it." From an environmental point of view, there is also no real objection to careful grazing with a limited number of animals. Poorer regions in particular also lack plant sources of high-quality proteins and micronutrients. For instance, vegetables and legumes cannot be grown everywhere and, moreover, can be harvested only at certain times of the year. "In such cases, animals are often a key element of a healthy diet," Parlasca said. "For many people, they are also an important source of income. If the revenue from milk, eggs and meat is lost, this can threaten their livelihoods." In any case, the poorer countries are not the problem, the authors point out. For their inhabitants, meat is usually much less frequently on the menu than in industrialized nations. This means that the rich countries in particular must reduce their meat consumption. Tax on meat products makes sense
At the moment, there is little sign of this. Although there are more vegetarians than before, aggregate meat consumption is stagnating across Europe. However, it is highest in North America and Australia. Qaim believes it is important to also consider higher taxes on animal-based foods. "That's certainly unpopular, especially since a 10% or 20% surcharge probably wouldn't be enough, if it's supposed to have a steering effect," he said. "Meat, however, has a high environmental cost that is not reflected in current prices. It would be entirely reasonable and fair to have consumers share more of these costs." The authors also call for the topic of "sustainable consumption" to be increasingly integrated into school curricula. These contents should also be better included into the training of future teachers. "We need to become more sensitive to the global impact of our decisions," said Qaim, who is also a member of the PhenoRob Cluster of Excellence and (like his colleague Martin Parlasca) of the Transdisciplinary Research Area (TRA) "Sustainable Futures" at the University of Bonn. "This is true not only with food, but also with the shirt we buy at the discount store to wear for a single evening at a party." Latest in Consumer Trends

Study Calls for 75% Reduction in Meat Consumption

Meat consumption must fall by at least 75 percent
Every EU citizen consumes around 80 kilograms of meat per year. But every juicy steak, every delicious sausage has a price that we do not pay at the counter, because livestock farming damages the climate and the environment. Ruminants for instance produce methane, which accelerates global warming. Animals also convert only a portion of the calories they are fed into meat. In order to feed the same number of people, meat therefore requires a much larger land area. This is to the detriment of ecosystems, as less space is left for natural species conservation. Furthermore, those eating too much meat live risky – meat in excess is not healthy and can promote chronic diseases. Credit: © ZEF/ University of Bonn
Every EU citizen consumes around 80 kilograms of meat per year. But every juicy steak, every delicious sausage has a price that we do not pay at the counter, because livestock farming damages the climate and the environment. Ruminants for instance produce methane, which accelerates global warming. Animals also convert only a portion of the calories they are fed into meat. In order to feed the same number of people, meat therefore requires a much larger land area. This is to the detriment of ecosystems, as less space is left for natural species conservation. Furthermore, those eating too much meat live risky – meat in excess is not healthy and can promote chronic diseases. So there are good reasons for significantly reducing consumption of animal-based foods. “If all humans consumed as much meat as Europeans or North Americans, we would certainly miss the international climate targets and many ecosystems would collapse,” explains study author Prof. Dr. Matin Qaim of the Center for Development Research (ZEF) at the University of Bonn. “We therefore need to significantly reduce our meat consumption, ideally to 20 kilograms or less annually. The war in Ukraine and the resulting shortages in international markets for cereal grains also underline that less grain should be fed to animals in order to support food security.” At present, around half of all grains produced worldwide are used as animal feed, Qaim said. Mass vegetarianism is not the best solution
Would it not be better for humankind to switch completely to vegetarian or, even better, vegan diets? According to the study, this would be the wrong consequence. On the one hand, there are many regions where plant-based foods cannot be grown. “We can’t live on grass, but ruminants can,” clarifies Qaim’s colleague and co-author Dr. Martin Parlasca. “Therefore, if grassland cannot be used in any other way, it makes perfect sense to keep livestock on it.” From an environmental point of view, there is also no real objection to careful grazing with a limited number of animals. Poorer regions in particular also lack plant sources of high-quality proteins and micronutrients. For instance, vegetables and legumes cannot be grown everywhere and, moreover, can be harvested only at certain times of the year. “In such cases, animals are often a key element of a healthy diet,” Parlasca points out. “For many people, they are also an important source of income. If the revenue from milk, eggs and meat is lost, this can threaten their livelihoods.” In any case, the poorer countries are not the problem, the authors point out. For their inhabitants, meat is usually much less frequently on the menu than in industrialized nations. This means that the rich countries in particular must reduce their meat consumption. Tax on meat products makes sense
At the moment, there is little sign of this. Although there are more vegetarians than before, aggregate meat consumption is stagnating across Europe. However, it is highest in North America and Australia. Qaim believes it is important to also consider higher taxes on animal-based foods. “That’s certainly unpopular, especially since a ten- or twenty-percent surcharge probably wouldn’t be enough, if it’s supposed to have a steering effect,” he says. “Meat, however, has a high environmental cost that is not reflected in current prices. It would be entirely reasonable and fair to have consumers share more of these costs.”
The authors also call for the topic of “sustainable consumption” to be increasingly integrated into school curricula. These contents should also be better included into the training of future teachers. “We need to become more sensitive to the global impact of our decisions,” emphasizes Qaim, who is also a member of the PhenoRob Cluster of Excellence and (like his colleague Martin Parlasca) of the Transdisciplinary Research Area (TRA) “Sustainable Futures” at the University of Bonn. “This is true not only with food, but also with the shirt we buy at the discount store to wear for a single evening at a party.”
Publication (Open Access): Martin C. Parlasca & Matin Qaim: Meat consumption and sustainability; Annual Review of Resource Economics;
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340

Meat consumption must fall by at least 75 percent

In order to achieve the climate goals, high meat consumption rates must be reduced, especially in the industrialized countries. In contrast, in the Global South (here in Ethiopia), owning livestock provides a livelihood for many people. Credit: © ZEF/ University of Bonn
Every EU citizen consumes around 80 kilograms of meat per year. But every juicy steak, every delicious sausage has a price that we do not pay at the counter, because livestock farming damages the climate and the environment. Ruminants, for instance, produce methane, which accelerates global warming. Animals also convert only a portion of the calories they are fed into meat. In order to feed the same number of people, meat therefore requires a much larger land area. This is to the detriment of ecosystems, as less space is left for natural species conservation. Furthermore, those eating too much meat live with health risks—meat in excess is not healthy and can promote chronic diseases. So there are good reasons for significantly reducing consumption of animal-based foods. "If all humans consumed as much meat as Europeans or North Americans, we would certainly miss the international climate targets and many ecosystems would collapse," explains study author Prof. Dr. Matin Qaim of the Center for Development Research (ZEF) at the University of Bonn. "We therefore need to significantly reduce our meat consumption, ideally to 20 kilograms or less annually. The war in Ukraine and the resulting shortages in international markets for cereal grains also underline that less grain should be fed to animals in order to support food security." At present, around half of all grains produced worldwide are used as animal feed , Qaim said. Mass vegetarianism is not the best solution
Would it not be better for humankind to switch completely to vegetarian or, even better, vegan diets? According to the study, this would be the wrong consequence. On the one hand, there are many regions where plant-based foods cannot be grown. "We can't live on grass, but ruminants can," clarifies Qaim's colleague and co-author Dr. Martin Parlasca. "Therefore, if grassland cannot be used in any other way, it makes perfect sense to keep livestock on it." From an environmental point of view, there is also no real objection to careful grazing with a limited number of animals. Poorer regions in particular also lack plant sources of high-quality proteins and micronutrients. For instance, vegetables and legumes cannot be grown everywhere, and moreover, can be harvested only at certain times of the year. "In such cases, animals are often a key element of a healthy diet," Parlasca points out. "For many people, they are also an important source of income. If the revenue from milk, eggs and meat is lost, this can threaten their livelihoods." In any case, the poorer countries are not the problem, the authors point out. For their inhabitants, meat is usually much less frequently on the menu than in industrialized nations. This means that the rich countries in particular must reduce their meat consumption. Agriculture in Ethiopia: In poorer regions of the world, livestock is often central to nutrition, as vegetables and legumes cannot be grown everywhere. Credit: © ZEF/ University of Bonn
Tax on meat products makes sense
At the moment, there is little sign of this. Although there are more vegetarians than before, aggregate meat consumption is stagnating across Europe. However, it is highest in North America and Australia. Qaim believes it is important to also consider higher taxes on animal-based foods. "That's certainly unpopular, especially since a 10 percent or 20 percent surcharge probably wouldn't be enough, if it's supposed to have a steering effect," he says. "Meat, however, has a high environmental cost that is not reflected in current prices. It would be entirely reasonable and fair to have consumers share more of these costs." The authors also call for the topic of "sustainable consumption" to be increasingly integrated into school curricula. These contents should also be better included into the training of future teachers. "We need to become more sensitive to the global impact of our decisions," emphasizes Qaim, who is also a member of the PhenoRob Cluster of Excellence and (like his colleague Martin Parlasca) of the Transdisciplinary Research Area (TRA) "Sustainable Futures" at the University of Bonn. "This is true not only with food, but also with the shirt we buy at the discount store to wear for a single evening at a party." Explore further

Meat consumption must fall by at least 75% for sustainable consumption, says study

Series A

QAim's CEM4Mobile software is targeted for optimizing customer experience management of mobile content services.

Date	5/15/2009
Round	Series A
Amount
Investors	Olli Oittinen, Tapio Heikkila, and Veraventure
Valuation
Revenue	0 FY undefined
Sources

First funding	Last Funding	Investor	Rounds	Type	Location
5/15/2009	5/15/2009	Tapio Heikkila	1 Series A	Angel Investor (Individual)	Finland
00/00/0000	00/00/0000	Olli Oittinen	Subscribe to see more	Angel Investor (Individual)	Finland
00/00/0000	00/00/0000	Veraventure	Subscribe to see more	Venture Capital	Finland

First funding	5/15/2009	00/00/0000	00/00/0000
Last Funding	5/15/2009	00/00/0000	00/00/0000
Investor	Tapio Heikkila	Olli Oittinen	Veraventure
Rounds	1 Series A	Subscribe to see more	Subscribe to see more
Board Seats
Type	Angel Investor (Individual)	Angel Investor (Individual)	Venture Capital
Location	Finland	Finland	Finland

Wells Fargo Success Story

3M Success Story

Platform Overview

QAim

Investors Count

QAim Funding, QAim Valuation & QAim Revenue

QAim Investors

Discover the right solution for your team