1

What’s feeding our food?The environmental and social impacts of the livestock sector

Friends of the Earth December 2008

istock

2

“Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale.” UN Food and Agriculture Organisation 2006

GettyI

mages

Indoor broiler farm for meat production

3

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 4

1. IMPACTS OF THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR 6

SOY’S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 8Agricultural expansion in Latin America 9

Land use change 10

Local environmental impacts 14

LIVESTOCK FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE 15

IMPACTS ON RURAL COMMUNITIES 17

Unemployment and land ownership 17

Slavery 17

Health impacts of pesticides 18

Food insecurity 18

LIVESTOCK AND HEALTH 19

2. WHAT’S DRIVING LIVESTOCK EXPANSION? 20

Growing consumption 20

Soy and animal feed 20

Exporting soy to Europe 21

Soy and animal feed in the UK 22

Poultry farming 22

Pork production 23

Dairy farming 24

The role of agribusiness 24

Global finance 24

Agricultural policy and soy 26

3. SOLUTIONS 28

REFERENCES 32

4

INTRODUCTION

The global food supply is under

increasing scrutiny. Climate change,

volatility in the cost of staple foods such

as rice and grain, and fluctuations in oil

prices have exposed vulnerabilities in a

system that is failing to feed some of the

poorest people around the world.

Our globalised food system is failing

fundamentally. It requires ever-growing

quantities of land, water, energy and

chemical inputs to produce the food we

eat. This is particularly true of intensive

livestock production.

Animals in factory farms in the UK and

Europe have been bred to require high

levels of protein to fuel fast growth and

high yields of meat, dairy and eggs. This

industry is increasingly global. Even

though bacon, burgers, milk and cheese

may be produced in the UK, most will

have come from animals fed on crops

grown on the other side of the world -

many of the damaging impacts of mass

production are being exported.

According to the UN’s Food and

Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the

livestock sector “emerges as one of the

top two or three most serious contributors

to the most serious environmental

problems, at every scale from local to

global”.1 In fact it is responsible for 18

per cent of global greenhouse gas

emissions.2

Great swathes of Latin America have

been given over to growing soy, which is

shipped around the world to be used in

animal feed as cheap protein for chicken,

pigs and cattle.

Beef raised on cattle ranches in highly

biodiverse areas of the Amazon, Cerrado

grasslands and Chaco habitats is

shipped to Europe and Britain to put meat

on our plates. Increasing quantities of

chicken and pork are also being imported.

As forests and other precious wildlife

habitats are destroyed to make way for

crops for animal feed and pasture for

grazing, indigenous people also lose their

territories. Rural communities are being

forced off their land, and small scale

farmers have nowhere to grow the food

they need for their families.

Latin America is a major player in the

livestock market. Brazil is responsible

for almost a third of global beef exports

and 40 per cent of exported chicken.3

The country is also the second largest

exporter of soy after the USA, followed

by Argentina4 and Paraguay. The vast

majority of soy grown worldwide is used

for animal feed.

This global system is not working for

farmers in the UK. With commodity price

rises, farmers have seen the cost of

animal feed and other inputs increase.

The price of fertiliser grew by 156 per

cent in the last year.5 The cost of chicken

feed has risen by £80/tonne in the same

period.6 The UK pork sector has already

seen its market share shrink as a result,7

and pig farmers have been hit by volatile

feed costs.

Growth in demand for livestock

products is set to continue, leading to the

conversion of more and more land for

crops and grazing, further exacerbating

the associated impacts. The developing

biofuels market adds to the demand for

land.

This report gives a detailed account

of the environmental and social

impacts of the current system of

producing meat and animal products,

in particular from the UK’s reliance

on imported soy for animal feed.

It uncovers the interdependence

between intensive livestock farming

in the UK and Europe and soy

production in Latin America, and

investigates the role of agribusiness,

global finance and agricultural

policies in driving this system.

It makes the case for an urgent

overhaul of the current model, and

proposes policy changes in the

UK and Europe to help create a

sustainable and equitable livestock

system for farmers, consumers and

the environment.

5 5

Photo

libra

ry

Cattle ranch in Mexico

6

1 IMPACTS OF THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR

Global intensive livestock production

has a high environmental price. Rearing

animals for food uses large areas of

agricultural land, vast quantities of water

and significant amounts of energy. It

is a cause of deforestation and land

use change, generating greenhouse

gas emissions and destroying valuable

carbon sinks and wildlife habitat. The

livestock industry is also a significant

source of pollution.8

Livestock already uses 70 per cent of

all available agricultural land, and uses

8 per cent of the global human water

supply.9

Livestock’s contribution to climate

change is greater than that of transport.10

It is responsible for 18 per cent of global

greenhouse gas emissions – including 9

per cent of anthropogenic global carbon

dioxide (CO2) emissions and 37 per cent

of anthropogenic methane.

Fattening a cow

1 kg of intensively-reared beef requires

up to 10 kg of animal feed11 and 15,500

litres of water.12 It produces as much

pollution as driving for three hours while

leaving the lights switched on at home.13

The global spread of intensive farming

has led to a major increase in the use

of high protein animal feeds, comprising

cereals and vegetable proteins such as

soy. In fact, 97 per cent of the soymeal

produced worldwide is used for animal

feed, and with demand set to double

by 2050, more and more land is being

turned over to feeding livestock.14

Land conversion

Land for grazing covers more than a

quarter of the planet’s available ice-

free surface.15 An average of 6 million

hectares of forest – an area twice the

size of Belgium – and 7 million hectares

of other land have been converted to

agriculture every year for the last 40

years.16

This massive demand for land has

been heightened by the growing biofuel

market – soy is used to make biodiesel,

while sugarcane is the main source

of ethanol. Government figures show

that soy, partially sourced from Brazil,17

was the main source of biodiesel in

the UK following the introduction of the

Renewable Fuel Obligation (April - May

2008).

Latin America’s growing agro-industry

has led to new roads and waterways

being built to transport soy, increasing

access to remote areas, often at

the expense of natural habitats and

communities.

Livestock uses 70 per cent of all available agricultural land, and uses 8 per cent of the global human water supply.

7

“Livestock impacts on ecosystem goods and services are largely negative, through impacts such as deforestation nutrient overloading, greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient depletion of grazing areas, dryland degradation from overgrazing, dust formation, and bush encroachment.”Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005

7777

Cattle ranching in Latin America

Cattle ranching is big business in Brazil.

With 204 million cattle, the country is

the world’s largest exporter of beef,

producing 7.6 million tonnes in 2003.18

Exports of leather goods, predominantly

shoes, are also growing.

Brazilian beef cattle are almost entirely

fed on pasture, with some 86 per cent

of Brazilian agricultural land used for

grazing.19 This recent expansion has

been primarily on forest land which has

been cleared to make way for pasture.20

Land in the Amazon is cheap and

provides good quality pasture.

Cattle ranching in Mato Grosso

traditionally takes place on the Cerrado

(savannah) grasslands. But this land is

increasingly being converted to arable

land for soy, pushing cattle ranchers into

the forest, which provides nutrient-rich

soil and high quality pasture for cattle

rearing.21

Brazilian beef accounts for 13 per cent of

the UK’s total beef imports or 4 per cent

of all beef consumed in the UK.22

7

GettyIm

ages

Pastureland that has been burnt for cattle ranching in the Amazon rainforest

8

1 IMPACTS OF THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR

Agricultural expansion in Latin AmericaSoy production in Latin America has

more than doubled in the last 15 years.

This rapid expansion is driving the

conversion of forests and grasslands to

cropland and grazing, devastating vast

areas of wildlife habitat with wide-ranging

effects on the global environment. It

is estimated that a further 100 million

hectares of pasture could be converted

for crop land in Brazil alone.26 Cattle

farmers, displaced by the expansion of

soy, have sought out new land, burning

undergrowth to clear areas that were

once covered by forest.

Changes in the way that land is used

affects biodiversity as plants and animals

lose their natural habitats. Such changes

also release huge quantities of carbon

dioxide, contributing to climate change.23

Land use change – from forest to

farmland – also affects the water cycle.

Stripped of its vegetation, the soil holds

less water and is more vulnerable to

erosion as it drains away.24

Soy cultivation itself uses fertilisers

and pesticides that pollute the soil and

ground water.25 Genetically modified (GM)

soy requires an even more intensive

chemical regime – almost all soy grown

in Argentina and Paraguay is GM.

8

SOY’S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

9

Soy expansion has had dramatic effects

on rural life, as well as impacting on other

areas of agriculture. Many small-scale

farmers have been priced off their land

or forced to sell to bigger producers,

losing their homes and their livelihoods.

Rural unemployment has increased as

large scale soy farms need little labour.27

As a result, many rural labourers have

migrated to the cities to look for work.28

Intensive livestock farms in Europe are

a major destination for Latin American

soy exports. Agricultural policies and

trade agreements with the United States

mean that Europe grows few crops for

animal protein and now depends on

imports for animal feed.29

Corb

is

Soybeans are harvested at Fartura Farm, in Mato Grosso state, Brazil – March 2008

10

Brazil Brazil is the second largest global

producer of soybeans after the United

States, followed by Argentina and then

Paraguay.33 Production is increasing in

all three countries, with a 170 per cent

increase in Brazil in the last 15 years.

Within Brazil, soy production is

concentrated in the state of Mato Grosso

(27 per cent), Paraná (22 per cent), Rio

Grande do Sul (15 per cent) and Mato

Grosso do Sul (12 per cent).34

Recent expansion has been

concentrated in Mato Grosso, Paraná

and Goiás – with half of the growth in

Mato Grosso and Goiás at the expense

of natural habitat.35

Mato Grosso forms part of the Amazon

region, with forest covering more than

half of its total land area. Cerrado

(savannah) covers most of the remaining

territory. More than half of Brazil’s soy

production is in the centre and south of

the state on land that was once covered

by Cerrado. A study of the displacement

impacts of soy expansion in Mato Grosso

found that for every four hectares of soy

planted, five hectares of natural habitat

were destroyed.36

Around 92 per cent of the Atlantic Forest’s amphibians are unique to the area.

1 IMPACTS OF THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR

Land use changeArgentina Soybean production covers

around half of Argentina’s cultivated land

and is centred in the states of Cordoba,

Santa Fe and Buenos Aires. Expansion

is spreading into the heavily forested

northern states such as Salta and

Santiago del Estero – around 415,000

hectares of forest were cleared in Salta

between 2002 and 2006.30

Soy is also eating into the rich

biodiversity of the sub-humid Chaco-

Yungas area, leading to the destruction

of habitat and rural settlements. Large-

scale plantations are effectively forcing

small scale farmers off their land.

According to government figures a total

of 250,000 hectares of forest are cleared

annually, with 80 per cent of this making

way for soy and cattle farming in the

Chaco.31 A further 4.9 million hectares

are vulnerable to soy conversion by 2020.

The Atlantic Forest, which runs along

the eastern coast of Brazil and inland to

Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay, has

also suffered from soy expansion which

has destroyed unique habitat and put

rare species at risk.

Paraguay Paraguay is the fifth largest

producer of soy and the fourth largest

exporter globally. The country has seen

a rapid expansion in recent years, with

nearly 2.5 million hectares planted with

soy in 2006/7.32

The Atlantic Forest extends into

Paraguay’s high altitude grasslands. Only

2 per cent of the country’s original forest

area remains, in increasingly isolated

fragments, due to clear cutting to make

way for agriculture.

Displaced cattle farmers and,

increasingly, soy plantations are moving

into the Chaco. This diverse habitat

and important ecosystem includes dry

savannah and wet forest and extends

across large parts of Paraguay, Bolivia

and Central and Northern Argentina.

Agri-business giant Cargill’s planned

mega port facility on the River Paraguay

threatens to drive further expansion of

soy into the region.

11 11 Sim

on R

aw

les/

Friends

of

the E

art

h

Biodiversity in the Atlantic Forest

The Atlantic Rainforest is one of the

world’s most biodiverse ecosystems,

classified as a biodiversity hotspot. It

extends from Brazil’s Atlantic coast,

inland to Paraguay and into Argentina.37

It now covers less than 10 per cent of its

original area.

The rainforest is home to around 8,000

unique plant species and more than 20

critically endangered species, including

the eskimo curlew, white-collared kite,

the black-faced lion tamarin and the

leatherback and hawksbill sea turtles.38

Approximately 92 per cent of the forest’s

amphibians are unique to the area.

There are fears that soy expansion in the

Atlantic Forest could destroy another 1.5

million hectares by 2020.39

The Atlantic Forest boasts 20,000 plant species. Yet less than 10 per cent of the forest remains.

Biodiversity Hotspots, Conservation International

Remaining Atlantic Forest

Original Atlantic Forest

BRASILIA

SAO PAULO

BOLIVIA

BRAZIL

URUGUAY

BUENOS

AIRES

ASUNCION

12

1 IMPACTS OF THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR

12

Biodiversity in the Amazon

The Amazon rainforest is the world’s

largest tropical forest extending across

Brazil, Peru, Columbia, Venezuela,

Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and

French Guiana.40 The Amazon is one

of the world’s most biodiverse regions

comprising a mosaic of ecosystems and

vegetation types including rainforests,

seasonal and deciduous forests.

It is home to almost a third of the world’s

known species,41 with more than 1,300

species of bird alone. These include the

toucan, the harpy eagle and more than

300 species of hummingbirds. There are

3,000 fishes42 and over 100,000 types of

invertebrates43. Many of these species

are only found in Brazil, including the

critically endangered black-faced lion

tamarin, the buffy-headed marmoset and

the maned three-toed sloth.44

The forest is also home to around 220

groups of indigenous people who have

lived in the Amazon for thousands of

years.45

Biodiversity in the Cerrado

The Cerrado is one of the largest and

most biodiverse savannah areas in

the world covering an area the size of

Western Europe. Its unique habitat is

made up of large stretches of grassland,

scrub and areas of woodland which run

alongside river banks.

It is internationally recognised as a

biodiversity hotspot – an area that is

home to a large number of unique

species, and which has already lost more

than 70 per cent of its original natural

vegetation.52

The Cerrado is home to 40 per cent of

Brazil’s mammals,53 reptiles and fish,

including a number of endangered

species, such as the giant armadillo, the

giant otter and the hyacinth macaw.54 It

also provides a habitat for at risk species

such as jaguars, maned wolves and

ocelots.

It is estimated that a further 9.6 million

hectares of Cerrado could be lost to soy

expansion by 2020.46

By 2005 over 6 million hectares had

been converted to soy within the legal

boundaries of the Amazon.47 Vast areas

of the Amazon have also been cleared

to raise cattle,48 causing much greater

indirect impacts due to ranching and

slash and burn farmers.

The recent soy price boom has also

fuelled an increase in deforestation,

with more than 3,000 square miles of

forest cleared between August 2007 and

August 2008 alone.49 If current trends

continue, cattle ranchers and soy farmers

alone will destroy 40 per cent of Amazon

rainforest by 2050.50

Brazil’s forests play a crucial role

in the fight against dangerous climate

change, storing carbon dioxide which

is released when the forest is cleared.

Continuing deforestation at the present

rate will make it all but impossible to

bring greenhouse gas emissions under

control.51

13

Bolivia Bolivia is not a major global

exporter of soy, but plantations have

expanded into the country as a result

of state and World Bank funding. Soy

covered 950,000 hectares in 200655

and plantations are now moving into

the Chiquitano forest region, which has

been described as one of the largest

remaining tracts of “relatively undisturbed

tall dry forest in the Neotropics, if not the

entire world.”56 The area provides habitat

to vulnerable species including the jaguar,

maned wolf, ocelot and spider monkey.

If current trends continue, cattle ranchers and soy farmers alone will destroy 40 per cent of Amazon rainforest by 2050.

Uruguay The soy industry is moving

into Uruguay, where plantations are

concentrated primarily on the west

coast – a number of these are owned by

Argentine soy farmers who are attracted

by Uruguay’s tax regime. The country

produced 460,000 tonnes of soy beans

in 2005.57

As more and more land is converted to

soy, local food production is reduced. As

plantations move into the Sauce region in

which fruit and vegetables are grown for

the capital, organic farmers and market

gardeners are concerned about pollution

from the soy fields and the effects of GM

soy.58

EU efforts to tackle deforestation

The European Union (EU) has put

forward proposals to stop global

deforestation by 2030 and to halve

tropical deforestation by 2020.59

The EU believes that a Global Forest

Carbon Mechanism, operated as part

of the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change’s

(UNFCCC) mitigation measures, will

help reduce deforestation by providing a

financial reward for retaining forests.

It also wants European timber suppliers

to seek guarantees that the timber they

sell has not been sourced illegally. It has

proposed further studies of the links

between deforestation and the imports of

non-timber products like soy.

13

PA

photo

s

Soy field in Santa Cruz, Bolivia

14

1 IMPACTS OF THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR

Local environmental impactsDamaging soil

The soil on soy plantations is exposed to

wind and rain and therefore vulnerable to

erosion. Brazil loses 55 million tonnes of

soil through erosion each year. As much

as 8 tonnes per hectare is lost in the soy

fields of the Chaco. Intensive farming

methods deplete the soil’s nutrients and

require fertiliser to compensate.60

Water use and water pollution

Soy plantations need water and can be

irrigated to boost yields. Irrigated crops

can even provide three rather than two

harvests a year.61 Recent dry years in

Paraguay and Brazil have led to smaller

than expected harvests.62 Although Brazil

is rich in terms of its water supply, 40

million Brazilian families do not have

access to supplies of clean drinking

water63 and parts of the country have

suffered severe drought in recent years.

Water supplies in the soy-producing

areas are contaminated with the

chemicals used by soy growers. Large

quantities of mineral fertilisers are

needed to compensate for the degraded

soil, causing excess nutrients to build up

in the soil and in the water, alongside a

cocktail of pesticide residues.64

The FAO estimates that 7 per cent of

global human water use is for growing

feed crops for livestock.65

Pesticide pollution

Much of the soy in Latin America is

grown from Monsanto’s Roundup

Ready genetically modified (GM) seed,

prompting growers to use even more

intensive farming methods. Roundup

Ready soy is genetically modified

to tolerate Monsanto’s Roundup

(glyphosate) herbicide, but reliance on

this technology has led to the emergence

of herbicide-tolerant weeds. As a result,

increased quantities of Roundup, as well

as older and more damaging herbicides

like 2,4-D and Paraquat, have to be

used.66

GM soy accounts for 98 per cent of

the soy harvest for Argentina and 90 per

cent in Paraguay. GM crops have been

introduced more slowly in Brazil and

some restrictions exist in the Amazon

region. It is estimated that around 50 per

cent of the Brazilian crop is still non-

GM.67

Glyphosate has become a major

source of pollution which contaminates

surface water and aquifers, threatens

human health and kills other vegetation.

It is sprayed onto crops from huge

spraying tractors or from the air. Farmers

in neighbouring fields report that the

spraying destroys their crops and some

have reported poisoned livestock.

Few insects or other wildlife live on soy

plantations, making the plants vulnerable

to pests and increasingly reliant on

pesticides.68

In Paraguay, laws requiring soy farmers

to plant buffer zones of native vegetation

around fields to help protect neighbouring

communities are routinely flouted. If any

trees are planted at all, they tend to be

The UK uses 1.43 billion cubic metres of Brazilian water a year through imported soy.WWF UK Water Footprint 2008

14

Cla

re O

xborr

ow

/Friends

of

the E

art

h

Young soy plants in a field in Paraguay

15

non-native eucalyptus or pine trees.

The livestock sector is a huge contributor

to climate change, generating significant

emissions of carbon dioxide, methane

and nitrous oxide throughout the

production process.

The conversion of forest and grassland

to cropland emits stored carbon and

reduces the global capacity for absorbing

carbon dioxide. Globally, this land-use

change set in motion by livestock farming

leads to the release of 2.4 billion tonnes

of carbon dioxide a year – equivalent to

around 6 per cent of global greenhouse

emissions.69

The manufacture of animal feed is also

a major source of emissions through

fertiliser production and from processing.

Soy is a particularly energy-intensive

crop because of the process used to

extract oil from the bean.70

Methane emissions from livestock

contribute around 6 per cent of global

greenhouse gas emissions.71 Cows,

sheep and goats emit methane

through the digestive process (enteric

fermentation), while manure is also high

in methane.

As meat and dairy consumption

increases, methane emissions are

predicted to rise by up to 60 per cent by

2030.72

Livestock also generates nitrous oxide

emissions from fertilisers, crop waste

and the intensive storage systems used

for animal waste. This contributes around

6 per cent to total greenhouse gas

emissions.73

LIVESTOCK FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Land-use change set in motion by livestock farming leads to the release of 2.4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. FAO, 2006

15

istock

Mature rainforest

16

1 IMPACTS OF THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR

Greenhouse gas emissions from soy

Livestock is responsible for 18 per cent

of global greenhouse gas emissions.74

The production of animal feed from soy

generates greenhouse gas emissions

both at the cultivation and the processing

stage.

Soy is a nitrogen-fixing plant, which

means it stabilises nitrogen in the

soil. But after harvest, nitrogen can be

released, producing nitrous oxide (N2O)

as the plants rot in the soil. Argentina

lists soy as a source of greenhouse

gas emissions in its report to the United

Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change75 after studies showed

that plantations increase the country’s

emissions of N2O.

Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse

gas, but nitrogen also plays a crucial

role in the Earth’s living systems through

the nitrogen cycle. Nothing can grow

without nitrogen but too much stimulates

excessive growth, which poisons water

courses through eutrophication.76

Once soybeans have been harvested

they are processed to extract the soy oil

and the soybean meal. This is an energy-

intensive chemical process that was

found to be the most significant source of

CO2 emissions77 during a study of energy

use in Minnesota, United States.

Energy use

Energy use continues at practically every

step of the livestock chain, from feed

crop to the fridge. Rearing, slaughter,

processing and storage all require energy,

as does the transport involved at each

stage.78 Once meat has been eaten, its

packaging and the uneaten elements

are transported and treated, generating

further CO2, methane and nitrous oxide.

In the UK, 18 per cent of greenhouse gas

emissions come from food production

and consumption.79

Emissions from agriculture have

stabilised within Europe, mainly as a

result of reduced fertiliser use. But with

large quantities of feed crops and food

now imported from Latin America, much

of Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions

from livestock have effectively been

exported rather than reduced.

A recent study by the Tyndall

Centre for Climate Change Research

highlighted how levels of deforestation

and greenhouse gas emissions from

food production affect our potential to

meet carbon reduction targets elsewhere

in the economy. The study found that

even if emissions from food production

were halved by 2050, and if 70 to 80 per

cent of the current forest carbon was

preserved, global emissions from other

sectors would need to peak by 2015 and

then decrease by up to 6.5 per cent a

year if there was to be any chance of

avoiding dangerous climate change by

limiting the temperature rise to 2˚C.80

Placio Duarte, from Organización Campesina del Norte, stands in his brother’s small farm next to an exposed soy field in the state of Concepcion, Paraguay.

17

Unemployment and land ownershipThe majority of soy plantations are owned

by large landowners and multinational

companies and can cover up to 50,000

hectares.81 Large-scale soy production

is highly mechanised and very profitable.

The planting and harvesting is carried

out by machines, meaning few people

are employed – a mechanised farm has

an average of one employee per 200

hectares.82

This has had a dramatic impact on rural

populations in soy-growing areas. Small

landowners, who find soy production

is not viable on a small scale, are

displaced by the bigger producers, while

campesinos (people who live and work

in the countryside) are left unemployed.

Many have been forced off their land and

thousands of others have left rural areas

to look for work in the cities.

Around 80 per cent of Paraguay’s soy

is destined for export83 due to the export-

orientated agriculture model introduced

in the country in the 1960s. This has

encouraged companies to develop large-

scale soy farms, often ignoring the rights

of the rural poor.

There are around 1.5 million small

farmers in Paraguay, yet 70 per cent of

the land is owned by just 2 per cent of

the country’s landowners.84 The vast

majority of the rural population does not

own land and lives in extreme poverty.

Only 15 per cent of this population has

access to safe drinking water and 42 per

cent to medical care.85

Many soy developers in Paraguay

are from abroad, particularly Brazil,

attracted by cheap land prices and easy

profits. Indigenous communities, whose

traditional land rights are not always

recognised or respected, have seen their

lands and way of live destroyed by the

spread of soy.

The growing demand for land has

led to conflicts across the soy-growing

region, with reports of violent attacks on

rural communities. A large number of

communities have been forcibly evicted

from their homes and their houses burnt,

often in the middle of the night.86 The

Paraguayan police and security forces

have been accused of operating death

squads, with at least 18 rural leaders

killed.87

Paraguay’s new president, Fernando

Lugo, elected in 2008, has promised

support for small farmers through land

reform, but will have to fight his way

through a corrupt system to achieve

this.88

Slavery Soy producers in Brazil have been found

to use slave labour to clear forest land

to make way for soy plantations. In 2004,

the government intervened and found

1,012 slaves on farms in Mato Grasso,

some of whom were children.89

Workers clearing the land are paid

minimal wages and, in some cases, they

are forced to work for free at gunpoint

in return for food provided by the

companies. Anyone trying to escape is

shot or punished. Hundreds of reports

of slavery at soy companies are being

investigated by the Brazilian Ministry of

Labour.90

IMPACTS ON RURAL COMMUNITIES

Cla

re O

xborro

w / F

riends o

f the E

arth

Three out of four soy farms in Paraguay are owned by foreign landowners.

18

Health impacts of pesticidesOnce the plantations have been

established, surrounding communities

are at risk from the pesticides and

herbicides mechanically sprayed on the

soy crops. In the Brazilian state of Piauí

there were 65 reports of poisoning during

2005, 15 of which were fatal.91

Killed by pesticides in Paraguay

In 2003, Silvino Talavera, an 11-year-

old boy in Paraguay, died after a tractor

spraying chemicals on a soy field failed to

see him in its path. His two sisters were

also hospitalised, but survived.

Supported by CONAMURI, a peasant

and indigenous women’s organisation,

the boy’s mother took legal action to

seek justice for the murder of her son.

As a result, the family were repeatedly

threatened, their animals killed and

farmland sabotaged.

Silvino’s older brother, a member of the

National Peasant Movement in Paraguay,

was murdered.

Silvino’s older sister suffered numerous

health problems following the pesticide

incident and two years ago gave birth to

a baby who was diagnosed as suffering

from birth defect hydrocephalus.

In November 2006, the two landowners

responsible for the spraying were finally

sentenced to two years in jail, after their

appeal was turned down by the Supreme

Court.92

Pesticide poisoning in Argentina93

Villagers in Colonia Loma Senés, a small

farming community in Formosa Province,

Argentina, were the victims of repeated

sprayings from the long-armed tractors

used to spray soy, known as mosquitoes.

The tractors were spraying glyphosate

and 2,4-D.

In February 2003, at least 23 farming

families suffered after a northerly wind

directed a cloud of pesticides towards

their fields. The chemicals destroyed

most of their crops, leaving the plants

burnt. Chickens in a neighbouring barn

were poisoned and died. People suffered

vomiting, nausea, nose bleeds, breathing

difficulties and problems with their eyes.

The damage left the communities without

enough food to feed themselves, let

alone sell at market. When the authorities

checked water supplies, they found they

were contaminated with pesticides.

No official action was taken to stop the

spraying so the community resorted to

legal action, asking for an injunction. The

judge granted a six-month ban, which

was extended for a further three months,

but in September 2003 the farm resumed

spraying.94

Communities living near soy plantations

report ongoing health problems including

continuous headaches, skin rashes,

stomach problems, increased rates

of miscarriage and babies born with

malformations.

Food insecurityAcross the region, the spread of soy

has reduced the number of small farms

– traditionally the source of food for the

local community, as well as changing

farming patterns on larger farms.

In Argentina, traditional farming

methods used until the 1990s saw

farmers rotating maize, wheat and

soybeans to allow the soil to recover, but

this method of farming has now virtually

disappeared.95 The number of dairy

farms also halved between 1988 and

2003, while production of corn, rice, oats

and beans has decreased substantially.96

The result has been an increase in food

insecurity. Figures show that between

1996 and 2003 the number of people

in Argentina unable to access a “basic

nutrition basket” rose from 3.7 million

to 8.7 million. Urban poverty and high

unemployment have been exacerbated

by the loss of rural employment due to

the expansion of soy.97

Gerd

Ludw

ig / P

anos P

icture

s

A crop-spraying aeroplane showers a field with pesticides.

19

Meat and dairy products are considered

an important source of protein in the

human diet, and provide a range of

minerals and vitamins including iron, zinc

and vitamin A. But the high levels of

consumption of livestock products in the

industrialised world have been clearly

linked to a number of health problems,

particularly heart disease, stroke and

certain cancers.

Levels of meat and dairy consumption

vary significantly between different

countries, rural and urban areas, and

income groups.

Consumption generally rises as

incomes increase,98 and as more people

move into towns and cities giving them

greater access to refrigerated produce.

From 1997 to 1999, average global

consumption for meat and dairy products

was 88 kg/year in industrialised countries

compared to a global average of just 36

kg/year. In South Asia it was just 5 kg per

person per year.99

Studies show the total protein

requirement from plant or animal sources

for a healthy 70 kg adult living in a

developed country is approximately 22

kg/year. The exact requirements depend

on the individual, age and level of

activity.100

Most people living in the industrialised

world, particularly meat eaters,

consume more than their daily protein

requirement.101

Eating more protein than the body

needs has been linked to health

problems, including an increased risk of

kidney problems. A diet rich in animal

protein also tends to have high levels of

animal fats, which in excess increases

the risk of heart disease and stroke.

There is also evidence of a link

between the consumption of meat,

particularly red meat, and some cancers.

The World Health Organisation (WHO)

estimates that 30 per cent of cancers

in the Western developed world (and

20 per cent in developing countries) are

caused by dietary factors.102 Cancer is

responsible for 7.1 million deaths globally

each year, and more than 20 million

people suffer from cancer worldwide.103

The World Cancer Research Fund

Expert Report warns that there is strong

evidence that red and processed meats

cause bowel cancer and recommends

limiting consumption of red meat and

avoiding all processed meats.104 The

report found that eating 150 g of

processed meat a day (equivalent to

three sausages) increases the risk of

developing bowel cancer by 63 per

cent.105

The WHO has also raised concerns

about the health impacts of food

produced intensively with high levels of

fertilisers and pesticides, residues of

which can contaminate food supplies.

Longer food chains mean longer

storage and transport routes, creating a

greater risk of food products deteriorating

and increased use of preservatives.106

LIVESTOCK AND HEALTH

Photo

libra

ry

Skinned pigs hanging in a slaughterhouse

20

2 WHAT’S DRIVING LIVESTOCK EXPANSION?

Growing consumptionThe livestock sector is estimated to

double in size by 2050.107 As figure 2

shows, the United States consumes the

most livestock produce globally, with

each American eating an average 125

kg of meat a year – equivalent to more

than 400 sirloin steaks.108 Per capita meat

consumption in Europe averaged 74

kg in 2002, while the UK consumed an

average 80 kg/person109 – equivalent to

1,400 pork sausages – nearly 4 a day.110

What’s more, poultry consumption in the

UK has doubled in the last 20 years.111

Demand is also growing in some

developing countries as a result of

rising incomes and a growing urban

middle class112, although it is still well

below European and US levels. Meat

consumption in China has gone from

an average of 20 kg per capita in 1980

to 52kg today.113 Although in India meat

consumption has grown by 40 per cent

in the last 15 years, it is still 40 times less

than average consumption in the UK.

Soy and animal feedSoy contains high levels of vegetable

protein and has a lower oil content

then other seeds, making it suitable for

protein-rich feed meal. Soy accounts for

65 per cent of all proteins used for animal

feed in Europe (40 per cent in the UK).

How soy is used

Soy is a legume which grows in North

and South America, Asia and Europe. It

produces beans containing high levels

of protein and oil. The harvested beans

are processed to extract the oil (around

20 per cent of the bean), which is used

for human consumption, animal feed and

biofuels.

The high protein soymeal left over after oil

extraction (around 75 per cent) is toasted

and ground. Animal feed accounts for 97

per cent of global soymeal production.

Europe’s reliance on imported soy is a

legacy of European agricultural policy

dating from the start of the Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP), which stated

that imports of animal feed were not

subject to the same tariffs as other

agricultural produce. This meant it made

sense for farmers to import feed, initially

from the United States.

In 1992 the United States negotiated

a limit on European oilseed production

as part of the Blair House Agreement

which led to even greater dependency on

imported soy.114

A further significant increase in

demand for soy came after the ban

on processed animal proteins in feed

as a result of bovine spongiform

encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. Meat and

bone meal were a common source of

protein for livestock feed prior to the

outbreak in the 1990s. The reduction in

availability of fishmeal due to increased

demand from aquaculture was also a

significant factor in the switch to soy.115

It is possible to grow alternative

sources of protein within the UK and

Europe – including oilseed rape meal,

peas and beans – but the distorting effect

of the CAP and trade barriers introduced

by the United States, mean that for many

European countries it has been cheaper

and more convenient not to do so.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Average meat consumption per person in 2002

Meat consumption per capita (kilograms per person)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

2

52

125

80

74

39

Figure 2: Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations (FAO)

istock

Soy beans

21

Europe’s land grab

The amount of land needed to produce

soy for the European market since the

ban on meat and bone meal in 1996 is

roughly equal to the area of deforestation

in the Brazilian rainforest since that

date.118

Exporting soy to Europe The European Union (EU) relies on Brazil

for 64 per cent of soybean imports and

Argentina for 61 per cent of soymeal

imports.116 This demand accounts for

almost a third of Brazil’s total soybean

harvest – see figure 3.

In 2007 more than 78 per cent of UK

soybean imports and 34 per cent of

soymeal imports came from Brazil. A

further 47 per cent of the UK’s soymeal

was imported from Argentina. A small

percentage of soy was imported from

Paraguay,117 although as the country

exports most of its soy to Brazil and

Argentina, it is likely that the EU is

indirectly consuming significant amounts

of Paraguayan soy.

21

Percentage of total soybean harvest exported to EU by Latin American countries 2006-07

Figure 3: Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations (FAO)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Soybean equivalent exported to EU (million tonnes)

Total soybean harvest (1000 tonnes)

Flic

kr

Sacks of soy beans for export

25%

32%

7%

22

Soy and animal feed in the UKSoy is a particularly significant feed

ingredient for pigs and poultry where high

protein levels are needed to achieve the

quick growth rates. Other sectors, such

as dairy, are also reliant on soy to provide

the protein element of the feed. Figure

4 shows the relative quantities of soy

needed to produce the livestock products

consumed in the UK.

Poultry production Poultry is the fastest growing sector in

the global livestock industry119 and is the

most frequently eaten meat in the UK.

There are around 3,000 broiler farms

in the UK (raising chickens for meat) with

approximately 120 million broiler chickens

in production at any one time.120

High-protein diets have been

developed to make birds grow faster,

keeping the cost of the meat low. Most

chickens now reach their desired weight

within about 40 days121, compared to 84

days for organic birds.122 Cereals, soy

and legumes form the basis of most

poultry feed,123 with soy making up

between 20 and 25 per cent.124

The UK poultry industry supplies

around 88 per cent of the overall UK

market, but imports roughly twice the

quantity of chicken that it exports.125

Three million chickens each week

The UK’s poultry market is dominated

by five companies who process more

than 50 per cent of the chicken meat

on sale.126 The biggest of these is

Grampian which was acquired by Dutch

company VION in 2008.127 Grampian

processes 19 per cent of chickens sold

in the UK – almost 3 million chickens

a week that are sold as fresh, frozen

and cooked products. Other big players

in the UK include Faccenda (2 million

chickens a week), 2 Sisters Food Group

which supplies Tesco, Waitrose and

Marks &Spencer, the rapidly expanding

Northern Irish company Moy Park,

and Sun Valley, which is owned by the

US grain giant Cargill and supplies

McDonalds and Morrisons.128

The Latin American poultry sector has

grown significantly in recent years and

provides 10 per cent of UK imports.129

Poultry production is increasing in

Argentina and Chile, but Brazil is home

to the largest Latin American poultry

industry and accounts for 40 per cent of

exports. Around half of Brazilian poultry

is exported. Major markets include

China, Japan, Russia and the European

Union.130 The country’s top 10 companies

account for 85 per cent of poultry

exports. The same companies lead in

pork exports, feeding poultry and pigs on

soymeal to keep costs low.131

Poultry feed accounts for more than half of all the soy used in the UK livestock sector.

Pork productionThe UK consumes approximately 803,000

tonnes of pork and 488,000 tonnes of

bacon – that is 74 pork chops and 270

bacon rashers132 – per person a year.

Around two thirds of this is reared in the

UK, with the remainder imported from

Europe.

Cereal, oilseed (soy) and pulses are used

for pig feed. Amounts vary according to

the age of the pig and the price of cereal

compared to soy – soy usually makes up

8 to10 per cent of the total feed.133

23 23

Fig 4. Van 1.7 Gelder et al,

Soy Consumption for Feed and Fuel

in the European Union, October 2008

1.7

Soybean equivalent required to produce a UK citizen’s average annual intake of meat

and dairy products (in kilograms per person)

isto

ck

0 5 10 15 20 25

5.6

6.7

22.2

12.5

1.9

3.8

Kilograms per person

Broiler farm

24

Dairy productionMost of the UK’s dairy herd are Holstein-

Friesians which have been bred to yield

between 5 and 10,000 litres of milk a

year.134 Soy is an important source of

protein in their diet – even during the

summer when grass is available, animal

feed constitutes around half of their food.

Varying quantities of soy are used in

dairy cattle feed, but estimates suggest it

can make up as much as 10 per cent.135

Each year we consume an average of

118 litres of milk per person in the UK,136

3.6kg of butter, and 10.2kg of cheese.137

Most of this milk is sourced from UK

dairy farms, but significant proportions

of butter, cheese and yoghurt are

imported.138

The role of agribusinessCorporations involved in the soy trade are

key drivers of expansion and intensive

production. US companies Bunge and

Cargill (the world’s largest commodity

trader) dominate the soy industry in

Brazil and Argentina, buying the beans

from farmers, running crushing mills and

exporting soymeal and oil to the UK and

the rest of Europe.

Cargill also runs crushing mills for soy

and rape seed in the UK.139 Archer Daniel

Midland (ADM), Dreyfus and Brazilian

company André Maggi are important

players in Brazil.

Trading companies, like Cargill and

Bunge, have a crucial role in controlling

the whole soy production process

because farmers depend on them to

provide credit and supplies of fertiliser

and pesticides. These companies also

manage the logistics, arranging storage,

transport and processing.

Although the largest public UK

companies are required to report on their

environmental and social impacts under

the Companies Act 2006, there are no

standards in place that dictate how they

should report and few actually provide

comprehensive information on their

activities.

Global financeThe rapid expansion in soy production

has also been facilitated by multilateral

banks, including the World Bank and the

Inter-American Development Bank, who

are keen to encourage agriculture for

export.

The International Financial Corporation

(IFC), which is part of the World Bank,

provides investment in the livestock

sector, and its approach has been

criticised by the World Bank’s former

environmental director Robert Goodland.

According to Goodland, the IFC has

contributed $732 million (around £460

million) to damaging livestock projects

in South America, Asia and Eastern

Europe, of which $36.6 million (around

£23 million) would have come from British

tax payers.140

One of these projects involved a $90

million loan to Bertin Ltda, one of Brazil’s

leading beef and leather producers, to

fund the expansion of the Bertin Amazon

Cattle Ranching project, which poses a

recognised risk of deforestation in the

Amazon. The IFC funding enabled the

project to secure $250 million (around

£158 million) in further loans from the

Inter-American Development Bank.

2 WHAT’S DRIVING LIVESTOCK EXPANSION?

25

UK taxpayers’ money is also being

used to finance intensive livestock

production through the European Bank

of Reconstruction and Development

(EBRD). The EBRD has provided funding

for thousands of agricultural projects in

central Europe, including a contribution

of £7.8 million to intensive livestock

production in 2007-08.

British and European banks play an

important part in financing the soy trade

by holding shares and providing finance

for key companies:

Barclays has investments in ADM,

Bunge and Cargill.

Barclays and HSBC both provide

credit for ADM and Bunge.

HSBC and the Royal Bank of

Scotland hold bonds in Cargill.

Dominating the soy feed chain

US commodity trader Cargill owns one

of the UK’s main chicken processing

companies, Sun Valley. The company

operates across Europe and processes

around 1 million chickens a week in the

UK. Customers include McDonalds and

supermarket chain Morrisons.

Sun Valley chickens are fed on Cargill

soy, imported through the company’s

plant in Liverpool, 25 per cent of which is

sourced from Brazil.

Soy certification

Soy certification schemes are

increasingly being proposed as a way

of managing the damaging impacts

of production. The Round Table on

Responsible Soy (RTRS) was established

in November 2006, representing different

stakeholders from the industry, with the

big soy producers dominant.141 NGOs

in Latin America have largely rejected

or boycotted certification and most

schemes have failed to consult with

affected communities while developing

their criteria. The RTRS has so far only

established draft criteria, but these do not

take into account the damaging impacts

of soy expansion. An earlier attempt

at setting a sustainability standard led

to the Basel Criteria142 – a broad set of

principles which can be applied to local

schemes. Pro Terra is the only Brazilian

scheme in operation that meets the

Basel Criteria and there is relatively

little Basel-accredited soy available

on the market.143 The UK Foreign and

Commonwealth Office has invested

£236,520 in a soy certification project in

Brazil aimed at reducing deforestation.144

While the scheme was successful in

reducing deforestation rates, there are

concerns that such schemes displace

problems and disregard property and

land rights.145

Questions remain about the enforcement

of sustainability standards for any

scheme. Evidence suggests that criteria

will be used to justify expansion while

having little impact on the methods of

production or the macro effects of large-

scale expansion.

Frie

nds o

f the E

arth

/Cla

re O

xborro

w

Cargill soy-processing plant, Paraguay

26

Agricultural policy and soyUK and European agricultural policies

have played a key role in developing

Europe’s reliance on imported soy

for animal feed. When the Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP) was established

in Europe in 1962, it established an

agreement with the United States that

animal feed would not be subject to

import tariffs.

Under the CAP, the European

Community effectively guaranteed prices

for most European farm produce when

the market price fell below an agreed

target level. This encouraged farmers

to focus on producing cereals, milk,

beef and sugar – where the price was

guaranteed – and to import animal feed.

This meant that land previously used to

grow feed was converted to produce

cereals.146

As a result, Europe became dependent

on soy imports, initially from the United

States. Attempts to reform the CAP met

with considerable resistance from the

United States and the European animal

feed industry. In 1992, European farmers

limited the amount of oilseed that they

could grow by signing a 10-year deal with

the United States.147 When this expired

BSE was already having an impact on

farming – in 1996, the use of meat and

bone meal in animal feed had been

banned and farmers turned to soy as an

alternative protein source.

The European Union currently spends

£34 billion each year on the CAP, of

which £3.4 billion comes from the UK –

the equivalent of £500 per family. Around

88 per cent of this is spent on direct aid

to farming and food production. The rest

is used to protect farmers from sudden

drops in market prices.

Farmers receive funds according to

the size of the farm, meaning large-scale

farmers and agribusinesses receive most

of the aid – 80 per cent of funds reach

just 20 per cent of farms.

In 2002, more than 60 per cent of the

CAP budget went to livestock-related

production. Following changes in the

way payments were made, it is no longer

possible to know how much money goes

to livestock production, but 14 of the top

20 UK recipients are involved in dairy

production.

For example, Meadow Foods, a leading

manufacturer of bulk fats and proteins

used in ice cream, spreads, sports drinks,

processed meats and confectionery,

received nearly £26 million in 2003-04.

Corb

is

Soybeans are harvested at Fartura Farm, in Mato Grosso state, Brazil, March 2008

27 27

Farmers receive subsidy funding according to their size so large-scale farmers and agri-business receive most of the aid.

28

3 SOLUTIONS

It is clear that the current model

of livestock production is no longer

affordable in environmental or social

terms. The climate, water systems, soil

and wildlife cannot sustain the damage

that is being caused.

There are increasing pressures on land

use. Our demand for food is growing in

line with the world population and there is

an urgent need to maintain our forest and

grasslands and to prevent the erosion of

soils.

Soy is not the only available source

of vegetable proteins suitable for animal

feed. Alternatives include hemp, lupins,

legumes and oilseed rape. Many of

these are already produced in the UK

and some are suitable for production

on farms, reducing the need for

transportation. For example, in France

peas are grown for use in pig and poultry

feed.

A more localised system of food

production – using animal feed grown in

Europe to feed animals reared in Europe

– would help to reduce the devastating

impacts of habitat loss in Latin America,

as well as reducing the climate-changing

emissions generated by land use change

and transporting vast quantities of feed.

Local food production also encourages

the production of a wider range of food

crops, locally-appropriate diets, greater

local control over food supplies and less

price volatility for farmers.

Less intensive production systems and

a greater reliance on organic production

can reduce the damaging environmental

effects of over-reliance on pesticides and

other inputs, as well as reducing farmers’

costs.

However, a switch to more sustainable

livestock systems will necessitate an

overall reduction in livestock production

and consumption.

The considerable environmental and

social damage caused by the livestock

sector requires a significant policy

response. There is no single policy that

can address the complex factors driving

unsustainable consumption. Action

from governments in producing and

consuming countries will be required to

initiate the necessary changes across the

whole supply chain.

Friends of the Earth has identified

eight key policy areas where action by

the UK Government, including changes

to UK and European policy, could help

to significantly reduce the impact of our

livestock consumption.

Forest and organic farm in Altos, run by Sobrevivencia/Friends of the Earth Paraguay for training and education

29

The UK currently spends large amounts

of taxpayers’ money subsidising

damaging large-scale intensive food

production, processing and export

through the CAP.

The Government must work within

Europe to transform the CAP objectives

(as set out in Article 33 of the Treaty

of Rome) to reflect the wider needs of

sustainable modern farming policy with

reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

The subsidies which underpin intensive

livestock farming 148 should be removed.

New measures must be introduced to

promote low-impact livestock systems,

the domestic production of sustainable

feeds, and research into the introduction

of different livestock breeds better suited

to a new feeding regime.149

A sustainable livestock system, with

locally-grown feed, will lead to reduced

livestock consumption. The UK does

not have sufficient agricultural land to

grow the levels of feed crops it currently

consumes. Investment is needed

in raising public awareness of the

environmental impact of intensive meat

and dairy production and the health

benefits of eating less meat.

Support and incentives must be made

available to farmers to help them adopt

less environmentally damaging practices

while maintaining a thriving UK industry

– it is crucial that farmers receive a fair

price for their produce.

“If we are serious about tackling food-related greenhouse gas emissions, we need to consider making significant reductions in our overall production of livestock products, while seeking to maximise the benefits that livestock can bring.”Food Climate Research Network 2007

Around £2.2 billion of public money

is currently spent on food in schools,

hospitals, prisons and care homes. Little

consideration is given to where this food

comes from or its wider impacts, despite

the Government’s Public Sector Food

Procurement Initiative. A ‘cheapest is

best’ approach dominates.

The Government must introduce new

enabling legislation by 2012 to ensure

that food procurement in the public

sector: complies with carbon reduction

targets and national environmental

legislation; does not damage biodiversity;

and supports local sustainable organic

livestock production where possible.

Such measures are already in use as

some local authorities and NHS trusts

are finding ways to reduce the levels of

meat and dairy in the meals they provide

in schools and hospitals.150

In the Netherlands, the government has

set a target of 100 per cent sustainable

food procurement by 2010. A similar

UK government policy could deliver real

environmental and health benefits, while

also influencing the European green

procurement policy currently being

discussed in the European Council and

Parliament.151

1 Changes to agricultural

and rural policy 2 Changes to the Government’s

food procurement policy

Cla

re O

xborro

w/F

riends o

f the E

arth

30

3

The Climate Change Act requires the

Government to find ways of substantially

reducing greenhouse gas emissions

from the food sector, particularly from

UK livestock farming. Measures already

being considered include reducing the

number of animals and using maize

silage for beef and dairy farming to

improve dairy yields. Ireland, Poland,

Austria and Belgium are already

addressing livestock numbers as a

means of meeting environmental

goals.153

However, the Act does not take

into account the global impacts of

importing food or animal feed. The

Government must look at effective

measures for reducing our unsustainable

dependence on imported feeds. As

part of this, the Government must push

for equitable solutions to forest loss

through agricultural expansion and over

consumption at international climate

talks.154

The impact of agriculture on climate

change must also be a primary

consideration in future European

discussion on the CAP to ensure that

it includes financial support for climate

adaptation measures.

In recognising the urgent need for

new ways of farming to reduce global

greenhouse gas emissions and

biodiversity impact, the government

must increase public funding (or redirect

existing funds, such as those destined

for agricultural biotechnology research)

for research into modern sustainable

farming systems which use lower levels

of livestock and inputs and which

maximise the potential for mixed farming.

This research needs to investigate

changes to livestock breeds, feed plant

varieties and cropping systems to deliver

a UK farming system that matches need

with environmental, rural development

and public health goals.

To facilitate this research and to

provide an appropriate and well-funded

institutional setting, the government

should set up a Sustainable Agricultural

Research Council.

Organic mixed farming systems in the

UK provide a valuable base from which to

start as they have benefited from a period

of considerable investment in breeding,

cropping and input testing to maximise

outputs whilst minimising impacts. Public

funds must also be directed into finding

ways to help consumers choose diets

containing lower levels of livestock

products.

UK public money is funding damaging

intensive livestock production through

the World Bank’s International Financial

Corporation (IFC), the European Bank of

Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)

and the Foreign and Commonwealth

Office’s Strategic Programme Fund. This

support contradicts the World Bank’s own

policies, including the Livestock Strategy,

which stipulates that no funding should

be directed towards industrial livestock

production.

The Government must commit to

ensuring that, within two years, public

money is no longer invested – via the

World Bank, the EBRD, or other financial

institutions – in intensive livestock

farming systems which depend on high

levels of imported feed. The Government

must also use its governance role within

the World Bank to ensure that the IFC

adheres to World Bank policy.

The UK must stop promoting soy

certification schemes which facilitate

large-scale production and expansion

with little reference to the wider

impacts.152

3 Changes to global

investment policy 4 Addressing climate change

policy and impacts 5 Funding for research

and development

Cla

re O

xborro

w/F

riends o

f the E

arth

Cla

re O

xborro

w/F

riends o

f the E

arth

Solar panel for drying fruit at sustainable agricultural college in Itapua, Paraguay

Sustainable agricultural college students show Sobrevivencia/Friends of the Earth Paraguay pigs’ swill made from scrap food and other farm waste

31

Measures to hold those businesses that

profit from soy and livestock production

accountable for their impacts on people

and the environment abroad are

inadequate.

The buying power of UK supermarkets

makes them key players in the supply

chain, but they have been criticised for

failing to use that power responsibly,

demanding low price goods regardless

of the impacts on farmers and the

environment. The Competition

Commission has recommended a

Groceries Supply Code of Practice as

a remedy. The Government must also

introduce a watchdog with powers to

oversee relations between supermarkets

and their suppliers and ensure that the

Code of Practice is enforced.

More must be done to ensure that

the victims of UK corporate abuse are

able to seek legal redress from those

companies when there is a failure of

governance in the host country. We

support the formation of an independent

UK Commission for Business, Human

Rights and the Environment to

investigate and redress claims of harm

to people and the environment by

UK companies operating overseas.

The Government must produce

clear guidance for companies on

how to report on their social and

environmental impacts, as required

under the Companies Act 2006.

The Government’s Sustainable

Consumption and Production Strategy

was set up to measure and improve

the sustainability of key products and

services. It must be revised so that it

considers the global environmental

impacts of UK consumption and,

instead of accepting current trends, it

must assess the potential for reduced

consumption levels. Plans for a meat

‘road map’ under the strategy have been

shelved.

The intensive farming methods used

for livestock products means that they

consistently score the highest in any

environmental impact assessment at

EU or UK level. The Department for

Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) must

work with the Food Standards Agency

to investigate the potential for a strategy

to reduce production impacts and

address demand for the benefit of the

environment and human health.

A full and immediate review of Europe’s

trade strategy is needed, given the

serious social and environmental impacts

of its trade in livestock and animal feed.

The review must ensure that development,

environmental sustainability and human

rights are priorities.

The Global Europe strategy must be

put on hold. This is business driven

and currently involves negotiations

with African, Caribbean and Pacific

countries aiming for bilateral trade deals

with the EU. There is concern these

deals will have disastrous impacts on

jobs, livelihoods, human rights and the

environment in the developing countries

that sign up. From an environmental

perspective, the deals will require

countries to lift export restrictions on raw

materials, denying them a key tool to

protect the environment and prevent the

overexploitation of natural resources like

forests.

Europe must also make its trade policy-

making more democratic, transparent

and accountable, by opening-up closed-

door proceedings to Parliamentarians

and civil society in the global South and

in Europe.

6 Improved corporate governance

and accountability 7 Sustainable Consumption

and Production Strategy 8 Review of European

trade policy

Sim

on R

aw

les/F

riends o

f the E

arth

Adopting these measures would see the UK Government

taking its first steps towards developing a more

sustainable approach to livestock farming and food.

Children from the Makushi tribe playing, Iwokrama Forest, Guyana

32

REFERENCES

32

1 Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN FAO, 2006, Executive Summary,

pXX

2 Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN FAO, 2006, pXXI

3 The Boom Beyond Commodities, Rabobank, 2008, p10,

http://km.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/Boom_Beyond_

Commodities_Sidwell_july08.pdf

4 Soy export weekly update, USSEC, 2008, http://www.

ussoyexports.org/news/weeklyexport/2008/Soy100608.pdf

5 Anglia Farmers Ltd, 2008, http://www.walesonline.co.uk/

countryside-farming-news/farming-news/2008/08/19/rising-costs-

and-store-wars-put-farms-at-risk-warns-nfu-91466-21556015/

6 GM and the food chain roundtable report, June 2008

7 The role of UK companies in driving soy expansion in South

America, Profundo Economic Research, 2008

8 Environmental Impact of Products, EIPRO report, EU Joint

Research Centre, 2006, p15

9 Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN FAO, 2006, Executive Summary

10 Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN FAO, 2006, Executive Summary,

pXXI

11 Less Meat, Less Heat, Pachauri R, 2008 (refs FAO 2006;

CAST1999)

12 Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function

of their consumption pattern, Hoekstra AY and Chapagain AK,

Water Resour Manage, 2006

13 Meat is murder on the environment, New Scientist, 2007, http://

environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19526134.500-

meat-is-murder-on-the-environment.html

14 Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN FAO, 2006, p43

15 Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN FAO, 2006, Executive Summary,

pXXI

16 Less Meat, Less Heat, Pachauri R, 2008 (refs Huang et al., 2002;

Trewavas, 2002; Fedoroff and Cohen, 1999; Green et al., 2005)

17 RFA monthly report - April/May, Renewable Fuels Agency, 2008,

Table 5, http://www.dft.gov.uk/rfa/_db/_documents/RFA_monthly_

report_Apr_May_2008_v1.1.pdf

18 The Cattle Ranching Chain in the Brazilian Amazon, Smeraldi R,

2006

19 Production Estimates and Crop Assessment Division Foreign

Agricultural Service, USDA, 2004 http://www.fas.usda.gov/pecad2/

highlights/2004/01/Amazon/Amazon_soybeans.htm

20 The Cattle Ranching Chain in the Brazilian Amazon, Smeraldi R,

2006

21 The Cattle Ranching Chain in the Brazilian Amazon, Smeraldi R,

2006

22 UK Beef Market Trends, Meat and Livestock Commission, 2006

http://mlc.example.co.uk/news/beefmarkets.asp

23 Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN FAO, 2006, p83

24 Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN FAO, 2006, p165

25 Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN FAO, 2006

26 The Boom Beyond Commodities, Rabobank, 2008, p26

27 Perspectivas de la producción sojera 2006 / 07.

Gudynas E , Montevideo:CLAES, 2007. Quoted in

The Roundtable in Ir-responsible Soy, Europe et al,

ASEED, 2008, p12, www.agropecuaria.org/observatorio/

OASOGudynasReporteSoja2006a07.pdf

28 Paraguayaanse boerengemeenschappen in de greep van

sojamonocultuur. De invloed van soja-expansie: migratie en verzet,

Maeyens A, 2008, http://www.aseed.net/index.php?option=com_co

ntent&task=view&id=515&Itemid=107 Quoted in The Roundtable

in Ir-responsible Soy, Europe et al, ASEED, 2008, p13

29 Animal Feed, A Key Common Agricultural Issue, CPE,

March 2003

30 Fuelling destruction in Latin America, Friends of the Earth Europe,

2008, p21

31 El vance la frontera agropecuariay sus consecuencias, Jefatura de

Gabinete de Ministros, 2008, http://www.ambiente.gov.ar/archivos/

web/File/032808_avance_soja.pdf

32 The truth about soya production in South America, United soya

republics, p17, http://www.lasojamata.org/files/soy_republic/

Chapt01IntroductionSoyModel.pdf

33 Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN FAO, 2006, Table 11

34 IBGE, http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/

35 AIDEnvironment, quoted in Commodity Chains, poverty and

biodiversity, Table 6, p20

36 AIDEnvironment, quoted in Commodity Chains, poverty and

biodiversity

37 WWF, http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/

ecoregions/atlantic_forests.cfm

38 Biodiversity Hotspots, Conservation International, http://web.

biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/atlantic_forest/

39 AIDEnvironment

40 The Amazon, http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/

41 The Amazon, http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_

wildlife.html

42 The Fate of the Amazonian Areas of Endemism, Da Silva et al.,

Conservation Biology 19 (3): 689-694, 2005, quoted on http://

www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/latin_america_and_

caribbean/region/amazon/the_area/wildlife_amazon/index.cfm

43 How Many Species Are There in Brazil? Lewinsohn TM and

Prado PI, Conservation Biology 19 (3): 619, 2005 quoted on http://

www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/latin_america_and_

caribbean/region/amazon/the_area/wildlife_amazon/index.cfm

44 Animal Info –Brazil, http://www.animalinfo.org/country/brazil.htm

45 Indigenous peoples in Brazil, Instituto Socioambiental

46 The impact of soya production on South American ecosystems,

AIDEnvironment

47 Eating up the Amazon, Greenpeace, April 2006

33 33

48 The Amazon: Brazil’s Final Soybean Frontier, United States

Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service,

Production Estimates and Crop Assessment Division, January

2004, http://www.fas.usda.gov/pecad/highlights/2004/01/Amazon/

Amazon_soybeans.htm. Cited in Hamburger connection fuels

amazon destruction: cattle ranching and destruction in Brazil’s

Amazon, Kaimowitz et al., Center for International Forestry

Research, 2004, http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/

media/Amazon.pdf

49 National Institute for Space Research (Brazil), 2008, http://www.

guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/01/forests.brazil

50 Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin, Soares-Filho BS et

al., Nature 440:520-523, March 2006

51 Reframing the climate change challenge in the light of post-

2000 emissions trends, Anderson K and Bows A, Tyndall Centre

for Climate Change Research, , Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society, 2008, http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/

a7877169j7163rh2/

52 Biodiversity Hotspots, Conservation International

53 Soy: Big business, big responsibility, The Dutch Soy Coalition,

2008, p22, http://www.bothends.nl/uploaded_files/2006_Soy_big_

business.pdf

54 Biodiversity Hotspots, Conservation International http://web.

biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/search/searchResults.

xml?search_type=species&sort=class&direction=up&results_per_

page=25&page=1

55 Soya in Bolivia: Dependency and the production of oleaginous

crops, United soya republics, http://www.lasojamata.org/files/

soy_republic/Chapt10SoyBoliviaDependency.pdf, p247

56 Amazon Watch, http://www.amazonwatch.org/amazon/BO/cuiaba/

index.php?page_number=4

57 Ministry of Cattle, Agriculture and Fishers (Uruguay) - quoted in

La expansion del monocultivo de la soja en Uruguay, Achkar M et

al., Uruguay Sustentable/REDES-Amigos de la Tierra, 2006

58 Real World radio, http://www.radiomundoreal.fm/rmr/?q=en/

node/25976

59 Addressing the challenges of deforestation and forest

degradation to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss,

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,

the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and

the Committee of the Regions COM(2008) 645/3, p3, http://

ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/com_2008_645.pdf

60 Facts about soy production and the Basel Criteria, WWF, p3, http://

assets.panda.org/downloads/factsheet_soy_eng.pdf

61 How Brazil outfarmed the American farmer, Fortune, 2008, http://

money.cnn.com/2008/01/16/news/international/brazil_soy.fortune/

index.htm

62 Who benefits from GM crops, Friends of the Earth International,

2008, http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/who_benefits.pdf

63 WWF, http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/safeguarding_the_

natural_world/rivers_and_lakes/working_around_the_world/brazil_

water_for_life/index.cfm

64 Soy Expansion – Losing Forests to Fields, WWF, 2003, http://

assets.panda.org/downloads/wwfsoyexpansion.pdf

65 Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO, 2006, p272

66 The truth about soya production in South America, United soya

republics, p29, http://www.lasojamata.org/files/soy_republic/

Chapt01IntroductionSoyModel.pdf

67 Pers com, Global ID

68 Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO, 2006, p71

69 Based on figures in Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO, 2006

70 Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO, 2006

71 World Agriculture towards 2015, FAO, 2003,

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y4252E/y4252e00.HTM

72 Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO, 2006

73 Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO, 2006

74 Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO, Executive Summary, 2006, pXXI

75 Comunicación Nacional de la República Argentina a la

Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio

Climático, 2007, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/argnc2s.pdf

76 Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication

77 Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO, 2006, p 101

78 Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO, 2006, p 99

79 Food Matters, Cabinet Office, 2008, http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.

uk/~/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/food/food_

matters_es%20pdf.ashx

80 Reframing the climate change challenge in the light of post-2000

emissions trends, Anderson K and Bows A, Tyndall Centre for

Climate Change Research, , Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society, 2008, http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/

a7877169j7163rh2/

81 Soy: Big business, big responsibility, The Dutch Soy Coalition,

2008, p17, http://www.bothends.nl/uploaded_files/2006_Soy_big_

business.pdf

82 Soy: Big business, big responsibility, The Dutch Soy Coalition,

2008, p27, http://www.bothends.nl/uploaded_files/2006_Soy_big_

business.pdf

83 Who benefits from GM crops, Friends of the Earth International,

2008, p21 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/who_benefits.

pdf

34

REFERENCES

34

84 Mesa DRS – Mesa de concertación para el Desarrollo Rural

Sostenible,Cumplimiento del PIDESC en Paraguay 2000-2006.

Uso indiscriminado de agrotóxicos en Paraguay: atropello a los

Derechos Económicos, Sociales y culturales de Comunidades

Campesinas e indígenas, 2007

85 Encyclopedia of the nations, http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/

economies/Americas/Paraguay-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html

86 Soy expansion and its violent attack on local and indigenous

communities in Paraguay, GRR, 2006, p18, http://

commodityplatform.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/paraguay-

soyero_english.pdf

87 Soya expansion and the paramilitarisation of the countryside,

united soya republics, p221, http://www.lasojamata.org/files/soy_

republic/Chapt09SoyExpansionParamilitarisationCountryside.pdf

88 openDemocracy, http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/

paraguay_s_historic_election

89 Eating up the Amazon, Greenpeace International, April 2006, p31,

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/

eating-up-the-amazon.pdf

90 Soy: Big business, big responsibility, The Dutch Soy Coalition,

2008, p26, http://www.bothends.nl/uploaded_files/2006_Soy_big_

business.pdf

91 Soy: Big business, big responsibility, The Dutch Soy Coalition,

2008, p30, http://www.bothends.nl/uploaded_files/2006_Soy_big_

business.pdf

92 Peasant family in Paraguay condemned by agrotoxins, http://www.

lasojamata.org/en/node/58

93 Friends of the Earth Europe case studies

94 Informe Grupo de Estudios Rurales (Rural Studies Group

Report), April 2008, UBA and Asociación de Feriantes de Pirané

(Market Vendors Association of Pirané), Formosa, http://www.

biodiversidadla.org/article/articleview/3575/1/8/

95 Rust, Resistance, Run Down Soils and Rising Costs - Problems

Facing Soybean Producers in Argentina, Technical Paper Number

8, Benbrook C, Ag BioTech InfoNet, January 2005, p20, http://

www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/rust-

resistence-run-down-soi.pdf

96 Soy: Big business, big responsibility, The Dutch Soy Coalition,

2008, p28, http://www.bothends.nl/uploaded_files/2006_Soy_big_

business.pdf

97 Rust, Resistance, Run Down Soils and Rising Costs - Problems

Facing Soybean Producers in Argentina, Technical Paper Number

8, Benbrook C, Ag BioTech InfoNet, January 2005

98 Availability and changes in consumption of animal products, WHO,

http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index4.

html

99 Availability and changes in consumption of animal products, WHO,

http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index4.

html

100 Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition, WHO,

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_935_eng.pdf

101 Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition, WHO,

p223, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_935_eng.pdf

102 Cancer: diet and physical activity’s impact, WHO, http://www.who.

int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/cancer/en/

103 Cancer: diet and physical activity’s impact, WHO, http://www.who.

int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/cancer/en/

104 World Cancer Research Fund 2008, http://www.wcrf-uk.org/

research_science/recommendations.lasso

105 World Cancer Research Fund 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

news/2619174/Fry-ups-can-lead-to-bowel-cancer.html

106 Global and regional food consumption patterns and trends, WHO,

http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index7.

html

107 Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN FAO, 2006

108 Average steak weight 300g taken from http://www.ocado.com/

webshop/getCategories.do?tags=|3|1085|113

109 Agriculture and Food - Meat Consumption: per capita, World

Resources Institute, 2002, http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/

agriculture-food/variable-193.html

110 Taking average sausage weight of 57g a sausage (8 sausages =

454g Sainsburys)

111 Meat and dairy production and consumption, Garnett T, Food

Climate Research Network, 2007, p21

112 Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN FAO, 2006

113 Turning High Prices Into an Opportunity: What is Needed?,

Constantin AL, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy,

April 2008, p6, http://www.iatp.org/iatp/publications.

cfm?accountID=451&refID=102867

114 Animal Feed, A key Common Agricultural Issue, CPE, March 2003

115 Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN FAO, 2006, p43

116 Soy Consumption for Feed and Fuel in the European Union, Van

Gelder et al, October 2008

117 Soy Consumption for Feed and Fuel in the European Union, Van

Gelder et al, October 2008

118 Does the Amazon suffer from BSE prevention?, Elferink EV et al.,

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment Vol 120, 2007, p467–

469, http://ivem.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/ivempubs/publart/2007/Agri

cEcosEnvElferink/2007AgricEcosysEnvirElferink.pdf

119 Compassion in World Farming, www.ciwf.org.uk/news/meat_

chickens/chickens_globalisation_and_the_forest_king.aspx

120 The Structure of the United Kingdom Poultry Industry, Commercial

Poultry Sector, DEFRA, June 2006, p8, http://www.defra.gov.uk/

animalh/diseases/vetsurveillance/pdf/commercial-poultry-ind.pdf

121 Meat and dairy production and consumption, Garnett T, Food

Climate Research Network, 2007, p41

122 Compassion in World Farming, http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_

animals/poultry/meat_chickens/default.aspx

35 35

123 British Poultry Council, http://www.poultry.uk.com/what_feed01.htm

124 Research on alternative feeds, Diamand E, March 2008, p7

125 Meat and dairy production and consumption, Garnett T, Food

Climate Research Network, 2007, p17

126 The role of UK companies in driving soy expansion in South

America, Profundo, September 2008, p22

127 The Poultry Site, http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/15163/

vion-to-take-over-grampian

128 The role of UK companies in driving soy expansion in South

America, Profundo Economic Research, August 2008, p23

129 Meat and dairy production and consumption, Garnett T, Food

Climate Research Network, 2007, p17

130 The Poultry Site, http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/413/brazil-

poultry-and-products-annual-overview-august-2005

131 The Poultry Site, http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/413/brazil-

poultry-and-products-annual-overview-august-2005

132 Assuming 30g / rasher - six rasher pack of bacon 180g at ocado.

com and http://www.redmeatindustryforum.org.uk/supplychain/

PigMeatConsumption.htm

133 Research on alternative feeds, Diamand E, March 2008

134 Meat and dairy production and consumption, Garnett T, Food

Climate Research Network, 2007, p35

135 GM and dairy cow feed: steps to a GM-free future for the UK dairy

industry, Greenpeace, 2004, p5, http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/

MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/6364.pdf

136 Soy Consumption for Feed and Fuel in the European Union, Van

Gelder et al, October 2008

137 Desktop study into demand for dairy products, Agra CEAS

consulting, http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/milk/documents/

agraceasreport.htm

138 Meat and dairy production and consumption, Garnett T, Food

Climate Research Network, 2007, p18

139 Soya and Oilseed Bluebook, 2008

140 IFC’s recent livestock projects, Goodland R, 2008

141 The Round Table on Ir-responsible Soy, ASEED Europe, BASE

IS, Corporate Europe Observatory, GRR, Rainforest Action

Network, April 2008, p7, http://www.corporateeurope.org/docs/

soygreenwash.pdf

142 The Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production, ProForest,

2004, http://assets.panda.org/downloads/05_02_16_basel_criteria_

engl.pdf

143 Sustainability as a smokescreen, Friends of the Earth

Europe, 2008, http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/

sustainabilitysmokescreen.html

144 The national Archives, http://collections.europarchive.

org/tna/20080205132101/www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/

Front%3fpagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&

cid=1188489516101

145 Sustainability as a smokescreen, Friends of the Earth Europe,

2008

146 Animal Feed, A key Common Agricultural Issue, CPE, March 2003

147 The Blair House Agreement, http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.

asp?ID=222

148 Compassion in World Farming defines this as “factory farming” -

where animals are treated like production machines rather than

individual sentient beings with welfare needs. It involves ‘intensive’

farming, characterised by the use of close confinement (cages

and crates) or in overcrowded sheds or barren outdoor feedlots. It

also involves the use of fast-growing or high-yield breeds where

the animals are prone to painful production-related diseases.

Factory farming is energy-intensive, using concentrated feed and

high mechanisation but has low labour requirements. Intensive

farming is often practiced on a massive scale and is often referred

to as ‘industrial’ agriculture.

149 The development of systems with low levels of external inputs

based on forage legumes offer good opportunities for economic

and sustainable production in the UK, but have had relatively

little adoption, apart from in the organic sector. The absence

of information from whole systems studies, combined with the

relatively low costs of soya protein imports, are two of the factors

contributing to limited adoption.

150 East Anglia Food Links have been working with their local NHS

trust. See http://www.eafl.org.uk/WhatWeDo.asp. Sustain has

been working with London NHS Trust Hospitals to develop

sustainable meat procurement. See http://www.sustainweb.org/

page.php?id=83

151 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,

the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions, 2008, http://ec.europa.eu/

environment/gpp/pdf/sec_2008_2126_2.pdf

152 Sustainability as a smokescreen, Friends of the Earth Europe,

2008

153 The Kyoto Protocol and the Effect of Existing and Planned

Measures in the Agricultural and Forestry Sector in the

EU25, Bosello F et al., NOTA DI LAVORO, 2007, http://

www.feem.it/NR/rdonlyres/D44A5A84-A20F-45D4-8512-

27B0F8A35BF9/2243/1307.pdf. Cited in Meat and dairy

production and consumption, Garnett T, Food Climate Research

Network, 2007

154 Under the Reducing Emissions from Developing Countries

(REDD) talks at the UN climate negotiations

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the

European Commission. The contents of this document are the sole

responsibility of Friends of the Earth and can under no circumstances

be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Commission.

This is an in-depth review of the impacts of intensive

livestock production. It reports that:

The factory farms we rely on for our meat and dairy in

the UK are driving climate change, wildlife loss and loss

of livelihoods among people in developing countries.

Industrial soy farming for cheap protein to fuel UK factory

farms is one of the main drivers of deforestation in Latin

America.

In the UK, neither farmers nor consumers are benefitting

from this model of farming.

It identifies the need for fundamental changes to the

funding, feeding and procurement of livestock in the UK

and Europe.

Friends of the Earth is calling on the Government to

revolutionise the way we produce meat and dairy in this

country. Urgent action is needed to reduce the impact of the

sector – and to support thriving and sustainable livestock

farming in the UK.

Making life better for people by inspiring solutions to environmental problems

Friends of the Earth, England Wales and Northern Ireland

26-28 Underwood Street, London N1 7JQ, United Kingdom

Tel 020 7490 1555 Fax 020 7490 0881 Website www.foe.co.uk

Trust company number 1533942, charity number 281681

Credits | Author: Helen Burley | Edited: Real Food Team, Nicky Stocks, Martin Cullen | Design: www.aylostudio.com

Printed in the UK on paper made from 100 per cent post-consumer waste DECEMBER 2008