The device, which was designed by UK company ZELP, neutralizes methane by catching a cow’s burp and oxidizing it, meaning it’s released into the atmosphere as CO2 and water vapor.

It was named as one of the winners of a £50,000 prize in the The Prince of Wales’ inaugural Terra Carta Design Lab, a competition that recognises “innovative design solutions to the climate crisis.”

The design may be innovative, but the fact that these contraptions are being validated and celebrated as a viable solution to the climate crisis by the press, the public, and one of the most recognizable royal figures in the world is hugely concerning.

The idea that animal agriculture-related emissions can be combated by some quick-fix media-friendly contraption, rather than by a drastic overhaul of our food system, belittles the urgency of the incoming climate catastrophe. The masks are papering over the cracks of the crisis and failing to address the root cause of the problem – that we eat far too much meat.

Animal farming and emissions

Animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of global warming, and is generally understood to be responsible for at least 14.5 percent of the world’s emissions (though one recent study put it as high as 87 percent).

Of all the animals we eat, cows are by far the biggest contributors, due largely to the fact that they emit methane when they burp, fart, and defecate. 

Methane, along with carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, is one of the main greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. It is 80 times more warming than CO2 in its first 20 years in the atmosphere.

A UN report released in August 2021 stated that countries need to make “strong, rapid, and sustained reductions” in methane emissions. Methane has a short half-life, meaning we would see the benefits very soon after reducing the gas.

Cutting these emissions, therefore, is the most effective thing we can do to quickly reduce global warming.

The warming planet

Around a third of the world’s methane comes from cattle, and the only way to sufficiently reduce these emissions is to dramatically cut the number of cows we farm for meat and dairy. Last year, the UN endorsed a report urging world leaders to shift away from animal agriculture and move towards plant-based food systems. Meanwhile, a 2018 study from the University of Oxford found that a 90 percent fall in beef consumption in western countries was “essential” to avoid climate breakdown.

But while senior royal figures and the general public are celebrating cow face masks, the beef and dairy industries are growing, and the planet is getting hotter. Worldwide, people consumed 70.9 million metric tons of beef in 2020, up from 65 million in 2010. Despite making a joint pledge to reduce methane emissions by almost a third in the next decade, neither the US or EU have made any commitments for the farming sectors. 

An IPCC report published in April of this year proclaimed that limiting global heating is a “now or never” issue, so the idea that we have time to flitter about putting masks on a few cows, rather than creating urgent revolutionary new laws to reduce their numbers, is hugely problematic. While the masks do apparently remove around 53 percent of cows’ methane emissions, they fail to address emissions in their flatulence and manure. It would also be pretty unfeasible to distribute them widely enough and persuade a notable proportion of farmers to use them. 

But even if the masks did successfully neutralize all methane from cows, and they were somehow given to every single one in the world, they would still fail to address the other environmental crises caused by these animals.

Resource-intensive cattle farming

Animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of deforestation, which is one of the most critical environmental issues we are currently faced with. Cattle ranching accounts for around 80 percent of deforestation in the Amazon, and beef production uses around half of agricultural land in the US. As well as the farms themselves, a huge amount of deforested land is used to grow soy and other feed for these animals.

Deforestation is responsible for a huge amount of carbon build-up in the atmosphere, which directly contributes to global warming. When trees are cut down to create farmland, the CO2 they were storing is released, and the reduction in the numbers of trees means that less of the gas is removed from the atmosphere. Methane, therefore, isn’t the only greenhouse gas cow farming creates. 

Animal welfare in the farming sector

But putting aside the environmental shortcomings of these masks, the idea that they are some sort of stroke of genius – when they likely inflict more misery on beings that already have a life more painful than it’s possible to imagine – shows how far removed we are from animal suffering. The designers claim that these masks fit “comfortably” and don’t impact their daily lives, but given that cows are sentient beings capable of distress and discomfort just like we are, this is doubtful.

Clearly, it isn’t enough that we forcibly impregnate them, drag away their calves hours after they’re born, hook them up to milking machines, then pack them off to the slaughterhouse where they’re strung up and have their throats cut (often while they’re alive and kicking). Now, humans have decided to force them to spend their lives with a massive piece of plastic attached to their face, all so we can carry on burying our heads in the sand about the fact that what we’re doing to them is killing the planet. 

These masks are just the latest bit of evidence that humans will do seemingly anything to avoid facing up to the fact that we need to urgently stop eating animals to avoid climate catastrophe.

While there is no doubt that they will work to reduce methane in the cows wearing them, they will likely make up a drop in the ocean in a world where meat demand is growing and cow farming continues to expand unchecked. We need urgent intervention from governments to dramatically reduce our meat intake and move us to a plant-based food system. 

The post Putting Face Masks On Cows Isn’t A Solution To The Climate Crisis – Not Eating Them Is appeared first on Plant Based News.

Animal agriculture is responsible for 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, but plant-based foods have a considerably lower impact. In 2018, one of the biggest ever food production studies revealed that going vegan was one of the most impactful choices a person could make for the benefit of the planet. 

The new study from Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg was published in the journal PLOS Climate.

Researchers gave more than 250 participants nine hypothetical menu designs. All had the emissions impact of each option clearly labeled.

For some dishes, the label indicated a “high emission” option (i.e. a salad with beef) or a “low emission” option (i.e. a salad with falafel). There was also a third, “medium emission” choice for some (a salad with chicken, for example).

Encouraging sustainable food choices

The researchers suggested that adding climate labels to menus was one of the “easiest things” restaurant owners can do to encourage more sustainable food choices.

They stated: “If we want more climate-friendly restaurant visits, highlighting dish components on a menu can really be an important parameter because it communicates what is normal and recommended.”

Some restauranteurs have already added climate labels to menus. Lou Palmer-Masterton, who owns the small vegan restaurant chain Stem & Glory, started including carbon emission scores on menus last year.

For example, Stem & Glory’s Affogato dessert contains a shot of espresso and dairy-free vanilla ice cream. It features a “high” rating. But most of its options range from “very low” to “low” on the carbon intensity scale.

Palmer-Masterton told the BBC: “Even though all our products are plant-based, I was still curious about the impact they have on the environment. This movement is exploding right now, and it makes sense.”

The post Carbon Footprint Labels On Menus Encourage Diners To Choose Plant-Based Foods, Says New Study appeared first on Plant Based News.

One pilot scheme, which will span across three European countries, is the result of a partnership between Danish-Swedish dairy giant Arla and Royal DSM, a Dutch health, nutrition, and materials company.

DSM invented Bovaer, a food additive that, when fed to cows, suppresses the enzyme that triggers methane production.

An individual cow produces an estimated 220 pounds of methane every year. As of 2022, there are more than one billion grazing cows on the planet.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere at approximately 25 times the rate of carbon dioxide.

Adding ¼ of a teaspoon of Bovaer to a cow’s daily feed is thought to reduce the cow’s methane emissions by up to 30 percent. 

Modified feed to be tested on 10,000 cows

Bovaer – which has been extensively tested in 14 countries over the last decade – is the first feed additive to be approved by the EU. It will be added to the feed of 10,000 dairy cows on 50 farms across Denmark, Sweden, and Germany as part of Arla’s pilot scheme.

If preliminary results are in line with Arla’s expectations, the conglomerate will double the number of cows involved in the scheme to 20,000 in 2023.

Hanne Søndergaard, Arla’s head of agriculture and sustainability, said: “Climate change requires urgent action, and we believe that dairy is part of the solution.”

“This is a great example of innovative scientific solutions and actions we are taking to create a sustainable and resilient future for dairy and I am excited to see how far this will take us,” Søndergaard said.

Dairy vs plant milk

Arla claims that its farmers are “among the most climate efficient dairy producers in the world,” estimating that one kilogram of its raw milk produces 1.15kg of carbon dioxide.

In 2013, one liter of dairy milk (equivalent to around 1.03kg) had a carbon footprint of 3.15 kg, in comparison to almond milk at 0.7 kg per liter, rice milk at 1.18 kg per liter, oat milk at 0.9 kg per liter, and soy milk at 0.98 kg per liter.

Dairy milk production also requires much more land and water than plant-based milk alternatives. For instance, pastureland and crop production to feed livestock amounts to 77 percent of the planet’s farmed land.

In fact, reducing meat and dairy is proven to be one of the most effective ways that individuals can lessen their impact on the planet.

Methane masks for cows

Meanwhile, in the UK, a different type of methane-reducing technology is being piloted at a beef farm in Shropshire.

The Zero Emissions Livestock Project (ZELP) teamed up with ABP Food Group – the UK’s largest beef producer – to invent a face mask for cows that converts their methane emissions into carbon dioxide and water.

The device recently received Prince Charles’ royal seal of approval at Terra Carta Design Lab’s Sustainable Markets Initiative. There, the invention won the grand prize of £50,000 along with three pioneering concepts.

The other winners were Aerseeds (artificial seed pods made from food waste), AMPHITEX (a recyclable textile), and The Tyre Collective (a device which collects tire wear particles and microplastics).

ZELP estimates that 95 percent of methane emitted by cows is from their mouths and nostrils. The start-up’s website claims that the cow mask will “reduce emissions while improving animal welfare.”

However, animal protection charity PETA has slammed the company for the “inhumane” and “medieval-looking” creation.

Talking to MailOnline, PETA Director Elisa Allen said: “The Prince of Wales should be royally ashamed to give this medieval-looking device an award instead of condemning it with at least the force he reserves for modern architecture.

“The creators of this inhumane contraption claim it is ‘comfortable’, but that’s akin to calling meat, eggs, and dairy ‘gifts to the environment’ when they cause it inarguable harm.

“The last thing our society needs is to inflict more suffering on animals, when what is needed is a rapid retreat from cruel and environmentally damaging animal agriculture.”

The post Farmers Test Modified Animal Feed And Methane Masks On Cows To Reduce Emissions appeared first on Plant Based News.

The study, published in Nature Food, focussed on 54 high-income countries, including Australia, France, Germany, the UK, and the US. 

Researchers looked at how the carbon footprint of these countries could change if their residents adopted the EAT-Lancet Commission’s “plant-forward” planetary health diet. 

Under these guidelines, whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, unsaturated plant oils, and legumes, for instance, make up most of an individual’s calories. Meanwhile, meat and dairy take a backseat, and are recommended in small amounts. 

Results

The study’s authors found that high-income countries could lower their agricultural emissions by 61 percent by adopting this plant-focused approach.

Dr Sonja Vermeulen, the lead global food scientist at WWF, was not involved in the study but spoke to Carbon Brief about the findings. 

“To put this in perspective,” Vermeulen explained, “it’s about the same positive impact as all countries signing up to and implementing the COP26 declaration on the transition to 100 percent zero emission cars and vans globally by 2040.”

It’s not just emissions that would change alongside dietary shifts. Moving away from animal products could free up an area of land larger than the entirety of the European Union, researchers said.

And if this land was left to revert to its natural state, it would sequester roughly 100 billion tons of carbon by the end of the century. 

This is equal to 14 years of global agricultural emissions from 2010. 

“The term ‘food system transformation’ is perhaps often used too lightly – but there can be no doubt that the changes in these places would constitute total transformation of local economies, landscapes and cultures,” Vermeulen commented.

“Imagine the vast cattle ranches of the US and Australia replaced with equally vast rewilded or repurposed lands – would these be used for biomass and bioenergy, or conservation and biodiversity, and how would rural communities create new livelihoods for themselves?”

Taking responsibility

Dr Matthew Hayek is an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Studies at NYU’s College of Arts & Science. Hayek also spoke to Carbon Brief about the research. 

Hayek, who was not involved in the study, suggested that those living in high-income communities have a responsibility to help tackle climate breakdown.

“Folks in developed countries eat far more meat and dairy than the global average… Reducing emissions from food consumption in rich countries is critical. For consumers who have ample food choices, these choices play a sizable role in contributing to our climate goals,” Hayek explained.

“Our policies must reflect this by making healthy and sustainable food choices more prevalent, convenient, and inexpensive,” they continued. “Imagine if half of the public in richer regions cut half the animal products in their diets, you’re still talking about a massive opportunity in environmental outcomes and public health.”

Moreover, such changes could have a domino effect and improve low- and mid-income countries’ environmental standing. This is without those groups even adjusting their own eating habits. 

If high-income nations lowered their meat intake, countries like Brazil and India would not need to export so much food, the study explains. This would lower their own emissions and free up land to capture carbon. 

Meat and the planet

The recent research is certainly not the first to find links between animal agriculture and environmental damage. 

In September, a major study, also published in Nature Food, found that meat production is to blame for 57 percent of global food-related emissions.

Along a similar vein, separate research discovered that meat-eaters are responsible for nearly two-thirds more emissions than vegetarians. 

Animal agriculture is also a leading driver of air and water pollution, deforestation, and ocean dead zones. It’s also resource-intensive, requiring vast amounts of water and crops. 

The post Plant-Based Shift Can Cut Food-Related Emissions By 61%, New Study Says appeared first on Plant Based News.

As part of this goal, Burger King is rolling out vegan nuggets across the UK from tomorrow (January 5, 2022).

The new nuggets, made from soy, are certified by The Vegan Society. They will join Burger King’s meat-free Rebel Whopper, which the chain debuted two years ago. 

Burger King UK chief executive Alasdair Murdoch described the launch as a “significant milestone.”

“We’re pleased to announce the launch of BKUK’s new vegan nuggets across our menus nationwide – a significant milestone for the company and an important next step in achieving our target of a 50 percent meat-free menu by 2030,” Murdoch said in a statement.

“Adapting to customer preferences is a key focus at Burger King – we are committed to helping our guests make good decisions about what they eat and drink and providing them with informed choices – whether through clear nutrition and allergen labelling, or by offering vegan and vegetarian options.

“The launch is another positive step in reducing our carbon footprint and driving innovation in our menus in response to growing demand for meatless alternatives and products with no animal protein in the UK.”

Sustainability at Burger King

Sustainability concerns are driving the plant-based push. The burger titan says keeping 50 percent of its menu meat-free will help lower its greenhouse gas emissions by 41 percent. 

The claim is backed up by an ever-growing bank of research. In November, a study concluded that meatless diets are responsible for 59 percent fewer emissions. 

And in 2019, the most comprehensive analysis of farming’s impact on the planet led researchers to encourage the uptake of vegan eating. 

“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, who led the study and went vegan himself whilst undertaking the research.

The post Burger King UK Pledges To Make Half Of Its Menu Meat-Free By 2030 To Lower Emissions appeared first on Plant Based News.

The study was the result of a collaboration between the Chinese University and the University of Exeter in the UK. It was published in the journal Nature Food in December.

Researchers looked at how diets shifted in China from 1980 to 2010. And consequently, how food production in the country adapted.

They discovered that during that timeframe, meat production skyrocketed by 433 percent. Specifically, from 15 to 80 megatons.

Further, agricultural ammonia (NH₃) emissions nearly doubled during the same period.

Ammonia – made of hydrogen and nitrogen – is emitted from animal waste and the fertilizer used to grow animal feed, as well as other sources.

Excess nitrogen can damage the ecosystem, especially in aquatic areas. Meanwhile, exposure to high concentrations of ammonia – which is corrosive – can lead to lung cancer, heart problems, blindness, or even death.

The study’s authors believe dietary changes are to blame for 63 percent of the increase in ammonia emissions, with upped meat intake being the chief culprit.

Premature deaths

Approximately 1.83 million people in China lost their lives due to particle matter pollution in 2010 alone.

The researchers estimate five percent of these premature deaths – around 91,500 people – to be the result of dietary changes.

If the country was to adhere to the 2016 Chinese Dietary Guidelines, which encourages a lower meat intake, it’s expected that ammonia emissions would drop by 2.1 teragrams.

The guidelines recommend consuming around 40 to 75 grams of meat a day – around the size of the palm of one’s hand.

An estimated 75,000 premature deaths could be avoided every year under these recommendations, the study concludes.

Professor Amos Tai Pui-kuen, lead author of the study, told the South China Morning Post: “Of course, we can’t undo the damage that has already been done, but what we can do is to move to a diet of mainly vegetables with a much smaller proportion of meat.”

Co-author Professor Lam Hon-ming added, “we hope residents make the choice not just for their health, but also for the health of the environment.”

It’s not the first time researchers have linked anthropogenic pollution to mortality rates.

In 2019, a UN report assembled by 250 experts from 70 countries warned that air pollution could result in “millions of premature deaths” in the next 30 years, especially in Asia and Africa.

Consequently, the UN report pushes for less meat-intensive diets, as well as reduced food waste and plastic pollution.

The post Meat Production To Blame For 90,000 Pollution-Related Deaths In China Every Year, Study Finds appeared first on Plant Based News.

The grand total of €25 billion (£21bn) will be put forward to try and limit nitrogen pollution as farmers across The Netherlands struggle with copious manure levels.

It comes as the country is dubbed to be in a “nitrogen crisis.”

Reducing farmed animals in The Netherlands

This week, the government confirmed plans to buy out farmers in a first of its kind deal, The Guardian reports.

Proposals have been in the works for months to force farmers to sell livestock.

This has caused major backlash resulting in protests as policymakers installed tighter regulations to grapple with the emissions problem.

Thousands of farmers kicked back with anger to the claims they were responsible for the issue.

“Everyone is blaming us for climate change but planes are worse than farmers and no-one is talking about them,” a dairy farmer told the BBC at the time.

What are nitrogen oxide emissions?

According to NASA, nitrogen accounts for almost 80 percent of the atmosphere. Despite this, too much of it can be damaging.

Excess levels, like The Netherlands, is witnessing, can reach water sources underground and in the ocean and cause algae blooms, which deplete oxygen in the water.

Dutch farmers maintain their passion for the environment, but the country’s animal agriculture system is widely understood to be overwhelming it.

Out of all countries in Europe, it holds the largest density of farmed animals in what The Guardian brands an “excess.” Further, the number of cows on farmlands has now surpassed 100 million.

The problem is caused when manure and urine from animals releases ammonia, which is a nitrogen compound.

Farming backlash

The detailed plans involve paying off farmers to either relocate or abandon the industry altogether. It also includes plans to help those who stay transform the way they farm, in a move away from industrial practices.

It will commence as a voluntary program, but the government may be forced to make it mandatory if emissions levels do not reduce.

The country is under increasing pressure to meet its climate targets. And, while some farmers accept they have to adapt, others are in a crisis themselves with many locked in debt.

“It’s time to restore nature, climate, and air, and in some areas that may mean there is no more place for intensive farmers there,” MP Tjeerd de Groot told The Guardian. 

The post The Netherlands To Buy Out Farmers And Slash Cow Numbers In Nitrogen ‘Crisis’ appeared first on Plant Based News.

The debate on farmers’ impact on the environment in the animal agriculture sector is fraught – especially between vegans.

And while many ease back on the blame game in the hopes farmers can switch to more sustainable methods, it is ongoing.

This week, a feature was published by the China Global Television Network (CGTN). It included expert views and delved into the wider picture of emissions and their causes.

Here, farmers expressed their concerns about the plant-based revolution being the saving grace of climate breakdown.

Animal agriculture and climate crisis

More discussions are happening at an international level about the need for farming to adapt to mitigate the climate crisis.

But many argue it is not enough – with high criticisms following COP26 as debate around diet remained firmly off the table.

It is widely agreed upon in the environmental and scientific community that limiting meat reduction is the answer. But a host of farming and political figures, especially those with firm financial ties to the industry, are avoiding making changes.

In the CGTN piece, farmers professed that providing a solution to agriculture needed “to bring the world’s farmers with it.”

Sharen O’Toole is an animal farmer from Wyoming, US. She told CGTN: “Raising plants also impacts the environment. It requires intensive farming systems.

And yet, a report by the US political group Humane Party published five years ago is one example of how the picture is more complex.

It claims that plant-based agriculture produces a staggering 1.2 trillion more pounds of “product” over animal farming. Additionally, it uses less land: 115 million fewer acres to be precise.

A lot of plant-based crops are grown simply to feed our global appetite for meat, too. WWF proclaims that almost 80 percent of soy production is to feed animal agriculture – and production is only on the rise.

“The landscape is not a benign process… all our food production needs to be sustainable.

“But we have to figure out a way to do it without allowing a couple of billion people to starve to death, which is kind of where we’re headed,” O’Toole added.

Plant-based solution

While the feature accepted livestock farming is a bigger emitter than both gas and oil combined, “there are good solutions” within it, the president of a US environmental group told the outlet.

These “solutions” weren’t outlined in the piece. 

Despite this, organizations such as the TransFARMation Project are supporting farmers in transitioning to farm hemp or mushrooms instead.

This is both for its environmental benefits, and because it benefits the farmers themselves.

It comes as other farmers around the world recognize that the main answer is to eat less meat, in richer countries at least.

Earlier this year, British farmers urged the UK government to implement a curb on meat intake despite it being “uncomfortable” for them.

The post Farmers Kick Back Against Methane Reduction: ‘We Are The Solution’ appeared first on Plant Based News.

Meat accounts for more than a quarter of diet-related emissions, the paper reads. Additionally, dairy made up 14 percent, with cakes and biscuits amounting to eight percent.

Plant-based diets triumphant

Upon comparing diets, researchers found that those who ate meat produced almost two-thirds more emissions than vegetarians.

The study is titled Variations in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of individual diets: Associations between the GHG and nutrient intake in the UK and available on Plos One.

And within it, authors urge for more stringent policies championing plant-based diets.

“Healthier diets had lower GHG emissions, demonstrating consistency between planetary and personal health,” it reads.

Diet and emissions

It’s not just emissions that diet affects. As the researchers outline here, our food choices contribute to air and water quality, soil health, biodiversity, all encapsulated within climate breakdown.

According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), animal agriculture is responsible for 14.5 percent of GHGs.

Other sources claim this number is far higher – at even 87 percent, as many argue figures don’t include the effect of land clearing for farming.

The post Meatless Diets Produce 59% Less Emissions, Says Study appeared first on Plant Based News.

Sodexo’s emission goals

Last week, Sodexo announced a comprehensive roadmap to net zero.

The company – which serves more than 100 million consumers daily – worked alongside the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) to develop the plan. SBTi helps guide companies’ emission reduction goals, ensuring they will help to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. 

Across the globe, Sodexo aims to reduce its carbon emissions by 34 percent before 2025, compared to a 2017 baseline. Further, the company plans to decarbonize its entire UK and Ireland sector. 

Sodexo’s move away from animal products is apt, given that the animal-based food system is to blame for a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, global livestock production accounts for 14.5-16.5 percent of all anthropogenic (human caused) emissions.

The company has already started exploring plant-based foods. Last year, Sodexo launched the vegan JUST Egg in the US. It previously brought out the meat-free Impossible Burger in 1,500 locations too. 

Sustainability drive

As well as the company’s menu update, Sodexo is adopting a 100 percent hybrid and electric vehicle policy, and will secure 100 percent renewable electricity by next year. 

And by 2025, Sodexo will transition to 100 percent reusable, recyclable, and compostable packaging. Additionally, the company aims to halve food waste by 2025. 

“The commitments we make today are the culmination of an extraordinary amount of work from our world-class team of sustainability experts,” commented Sean Haley, Sodexo UK and Ireland chairman.

“Their unswerving dedication to developing, not just a set of targets, but a detailed action plan to achieve them, gives me absolute confidence in our future ability to not just meet but to exceed our net zero goals.

“This will enable us to continue to support and improve the communities in which we live, work and serve.”

The post Catering Giant Sodexo To Make A Third Of Its Meals Vegan In The UK And Ireland appeared first on Plant Based News.