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.

A petition that garnered more than 53,000 signatures was submitted to various higher-ups last week (May 5), reaching the leaders of America, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, South Korea, and the UK. 

Animal protection organization Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), which distributed the petition, said the matter is one of increasing urgency.

“Our global leaders cannot continue to bury their heads in the sand,” said Sarah Moyes, senior campaigns manager at CIWF. “Livestock emissions play a significant role in the current climate emergency, yet this has been virtually overlooked by world leaders.”

Environmental impact of animal farming

Indeed, the 86 billion animals who are farmed for food every year are responsible for a significant portion of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, 14.5 percent of global emissions stem from animal agriculture – more than the world’s transportation sector (including planes, trains, cars, and other vehicles) combined.

But the industry’s environmental concerns don’t end with emission output. Approximately 20 to 33 percent of all fresh water in the world is used to farm animals, while more than 884 million people do not have access to safe drinking water.

Animal-based food production also requires extensive land clearing, resulting in surges of emissions and habitat loss. Livestock uses up nearly 80 percent of global agricultural land, despite providing less than 20 percent of the world’s calories.

Placing pressure on world leaders

“We must drastically reduce our total global meat and dairy consumption, so we’ve addressed our petition to leaders of top meat-consuming countries or regions,” Moyes continued.

“It’s critical these world leaders act to bring forward a meat and dairy reduction and support a shift to nature-friendly, higher welfare farming, as a matter of urgency.”

Moyes added: “Factory farming is significantly contributing to one of the biggest environmental challenges of our time and leaders of those countries where meat consumption is particularly high, must play their part to ensure we meet the Paris Agreement targets.”

“We must turn up the heat on world leaders to keep the global temperature down!”

The post Petition Delivered To World Leaders Calls For ‘Drastic’ Reduction In Animal Farming 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.

Researchers recommended a drop of at least 75 percent. They observed that Western countries, like the US and those in Europe, are putting an unnecessary strain on the planet through a high demand for meat.

In the EU, the average citizen consumes around 80 kilograms of meat per year. (For context, that’s about the same weight as an entire mountain lion.) But Dr. Matin Qaim, the study’s lead author, says this needs to drop to 20 kilograms or less.

This is because animal agriculture puts an enormous strain on the planet. 

The meat industry is a leading driver of deforestation, contributes 14.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and wastes significant amounts of resources. Just one steak, for example, requires more than 1,840 gallons of water, which is almost enough to fill 40 bathtubs.

The University of Bonn researchers were keen to stress that poorer countries are not the ones driving the meat industry’s environmental impact. Richer countries, though, need to take more responsibility.

“If all humans consumed as much meat as Europeans or North Americans, we would certainly miss the international climate targets and many ecosystems would collapse,” said Qaim. 

Is a meat tax the answer?

Studies do show that people are starting to reduce their meat intake. For example, a survey published last year suggested that nearly half of Europeans are actively eating less meat.

But more needs to be done to encourage a bigger change in eating habits.

Over the last few years, a number of experts have raised the idea of a meat tax to drive down meat consumption. And some research does suggest that the majority of consumers would be in favor; a 2021 study reported that 70 percent of Europeans would be open to the idea.

Qaim believes a tax would be “reasonable” and “fair.” 

He noted: “Meat has a high environmental cost that is not reflected in current prices,” before stressing that we all need to be “more sensitive to the global impact of our decisions.”

The post Meat Consumption Must Drop By 75% In Rich Countries, Says New Study appeared first on Plant Based News.

The move follows a 2020 study of Sodexo’s environmental impact. The internal analysis found that 70 percent of the company’s carbon footprint was linked to animal-based foods.

Animal agriculture is responsible for emitting 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. But research indicates plant-based food production is far kinder to the planet.

Just on an individual basis, eating lamb once or twice a week emits around 339 kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions per year. (That’s the same as driving a petrol car more than 860 miles.) But eating the same amount of tofu only emits 12 kilograms, according to the BBC’s climate impact calculator.

Moving universities away from meat

The new commitment from Sodexo is part of its Plant-Based Takeover partnership with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

The initiative sees Sodexo’s chefs undergo HSUS-led training in plant-based food preparation. They then go on to create nutritious, balanced menu offerings for university dining halls. Such takeovers are already in progress at 140 educational facilities.

Karla Dumas, HSUS’ director of foodservice innovation, praised Sodexo for making significant efforts to reduce its impact on the planet.

She said: “Any sustainability plan that’s meant to create real change—and not just be greenwashing jargon—will center on shifting from a meat-heavy menu to one that’s focused on plant-based entrées.”

“I’m thankful to Sodexo for being a leader in the industry by committing to the tangible changes required to meet greenhouse gas emission goals,” she added, before declaring that “Sodexo has found a formula for success.”

The post Nearly Half Of US Campus Menus Are About To Turn Plant-Based appeared first on Plant Based News.

The report, which is released every three years, highlights the various pressures of land usage, pollution, and climate breakdown on the environment. The report also quantifies how declining environmental health will go on to impact the wellbeing of the population in New Zealand. 

Urgent need to reduce the impact of industrial farming

“We call on the Government to halve New Zealand’s dairy herd from the 2019 peak of 6.3 million cows, to reduce the impacts of industrial dairying on freshwater, biodiversity, climate, and people’s health,” says Greenpeace.

In addition to polluting the rivers and climate, synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and dairy cow urine are driving causes of nitrate contamination of drinking water. 

Most alarmingly, using nitrate-contaminated water for drinking or food preparation is linked to a range of negative health issues, such as blue baby syndrome. Some studies also suggest that there may be an association between nitrate contamination and an increased risk of colorectal cancer. 

Bolder and faster action required

Greenpeace senior campaigner Steve Abel recently said: “The dairy industry has been telling us they’re cleaning up their act, but the environmental data shows the biggest degradations in rivers, climate, soil, marine coastal areas and drinking water are being caused by industrial dairy and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer.”

Now that the stats are in, Greenpeace is calling for the government to phase out synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, lower herd numbers, and support farmers in transitioning to more plant-based, lower impact farming for the good of the climate, rivers, and human health.

Those interested can view Greenpeace’s petition here.

The post Greenpeace Calls On New Zealand Government To Halve Dairy Herd appeared first on Plant Based News.

In the February issue of the Journal of Applied Phycology, researchers at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore described how they produced oil from microalgae and discovered positive health benefits in comparison to palm oil. 

Oil derived from microalgae – photosynthesizing microorganisms that live in salt- or fresh-water – contains more polyunsaturated fatty acids (which reduce cholesterol) and fewer saturated fatty acids than palm oil.

Microalgae is also environmentally sustainable: it is ubiquitous underwater, naturally regenerative, and harvesting it has little impact on the natural environment. Palm oil extraction, in contrast, is a notoriously large contributor to deforestation, threatening countless animal habitats, notably orangutans, pygmy elephants, and Sumatran rhinos.

William Chen DSc, director of NTU’s Food Science and Technology Program, said: “Developing these plant-based oils from algae is yet another triumph for NTU Singapore as we look to find successful ways to tackle problems in the agri-food-tech chain, especially those that have an adverse impact on the environment. 

“Uncovering this as a potential human food source is an opportunity to lessen the impact the food supply chain has on our planet,” Chen said.

Rising palm oil production

At present, palm oil is an ingredient in around half of all consumer products – both edible and inedible – with farmers producing 77 million tonnes of palm oil in 2018 alone. This number is expected to rise to 107.6 million tonnes by 2024, despite recent global recognition of palm oil’s detrimental impacts.

In 2012, the UK government committed to ensuring that 100 percent of palm oil used in the UK would come from sustainable sources. By 2019, the UK reached 70 percent of total palm oil imports being sustainable.

NTU is at the fore of food innovation. June 2021 saw the launch of its new undergraduate course dedicated to meat alternatives, created in partnership with the Good Food Institute Asia Pacific – the first course of its kind in Southeast Asia. 

The post Could Microalgae Oil Replace Palm Oil? Researchers Think So appeared first on Plant Based News.

The Food Foundation, an independent organization, assembled the report. With its research, the foundation aims to guide decision-makers in drawing up policies that address public health and nutrition as well as sustainability.

Researchers found that UK fruit and vegetable consumption currently falls below the five-a-day recommendation. They proposed that increasing produce intake to meet this recommendation, while reducing meat and sugar on a per calorie basis, would bring with it “significant health and environmental benefits.”

Meat, land use, and biodiversity

In general, animal agriculture requires significantly more land than the production of plant-based foods. For instance, it takes 100 times as much land to produce a kilocalorie of beef or lamb, when compared to plant-based alternatives.

Similarly high figures are seen in non-food, animal-derived products, such as wool, which requires 367 times more land to produce than cotton.

The new report maintains that if the UK population increased vegetable consumption by a handful a day, and reduced red meat intake by 5.5 grams a day, a significant amount of habitable area would be freed up.

Specifically, it expects up to 27 percent of land currently keeping grazing livestock could instead be used to foster biodiversity.

Looking at two models – both of which suggest increasing vegetables and reducing meat – an estimated 407 or 536 species (depending on the model) would gain habitable area of more than 10 percent.

Age of extinction

Further, the authors warn that failing to address land use in this way could result in 626 species losing habitable area (of more than 10 percent), due to symptoms of the worsening climate crisis.

“According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, one million animal and plant species globally are now threatened with extinction and a significant portion of this threat has been caused by land use changes associated with food production,” the report reads, warning that we may be entering the “sixth age of extinction.”

The report calls its proposed approach a “win-win-win,” given that it could have “positive outcomes” for biodiversity, carbon output, and public health.

The post Eating Less Meat And More Plants Could Help Protect 500 UK Species, Report Finds appeared first on Plant Based News.

Matthew Glover, who co-founded VFC in the UK in 2020, commissioned Mondra to conduct the research. Mondra assesses supply chain data to determine the environmental impact of food industry players.

In its analysis, Mondra compared VFC’s vegan fried chick*n fillets to animal-based southern fried chicken fillets. Both products are produced and sold in supermarkets in the UK.

The organization discovered that, gram-by-gram, the animal-based products had twice the climate impact compared to the plant-based options. Further, conventional meat used 24 times more freshwater and had 20 times the negative impact on biodiversity.

Mondra asserted that if the UK’s meat-eating population opted for VFC Fillets over southern fried chicken – for just one meal a week for one year – various environmental benefits would ensue.

The equivalent to 99.8 million showers’ worth of water would be saved, Mondra stated. Additionally, 9.3 tons of methane would not be expelled, and the emissions generated from driving 73.2 million miles in a car would be spared.

Finally, 3.8 million chickens’ lives could be saved, the analysis concluded.

Meat production data

In a statement, VFC’s Glover called on companies in the meat industry to follow suit by releasing their own environmental data.

“We know that the meat industry is causing significant and widespread damage to our climate, waterways, wild spaces, and wild animal populations. Their commitments so far amount to little more than tinkering with the existing system, and that’s not good enough.

“We need these companies to be honest about their impacts, and then to expand their investment in, and their production and promotion of, meat-free foods,” Glover said.

He added: “We created VFC specifically to spare the lives of animals, but, as an ethical company, we also wanted to understand how our products impact the planet.

“So, to achieve an A grade across the entire range of VFC is fantastic news, and shows once again the powerful impact we can have when we choose vegan foods over animal-based foods.”

VFC is available in Tesco stores across the United Kingdom and via their website here.

The post Chicken Meat Has Twice The Climate Impact Of Vegan Version, Analysis Shows appeared first on Plant Based News.