Think tanks report that the government needs to support the development and sale of man-made meat to help British people reduce meat consumption and tackle the climate crisis.
A report by the Social Markets Foundation (SMF) states that encouraging the consumption of non-animal “alternative proteins” will help the government achieve its goal of becoming carbon-neutral by 2050.
Raising cattle, sheep and chickens causes serious environmental damage. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), livestock accounts for about 14.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
In their report, SMF warns that meat consumption has not declined sufficiently in the last 50 years, despite increasing vegetarian options. The UK today consumes only 6% less meat per capita at home than it did in 1974.
The SMF claims that supporting the artificial meat industry can not only reduce meat consumption, but also bring many benefits. This could include reducing the risk of zoonotic diseases, improving animal welfare, and opening up opportunities for UK companies to export greens.
The report argues that public investment will accelerate the development of the meat substitute market. While plant-based products have become the “standard” on supermarket shelves, the laboratory-grown meat market is growing at a slower pace, providing financial support to offset high production costs. It states that it is necessary.
The UK has already promised £ 90m to support new alternative protein research, but SMF said it needs to raise this number. Otherwise, the country is at risk of being left behind in global competition.
According to the Climate Change Commission (CCC), the UK needs to reduce meat consumption by 20% by 2030 in order to reach its net zero target. The report warns that the introduction of a meat tax could be a source of public resentment and could force livestock farmers to compete with climate change activists.
Linus Pardoe, an SMF researcher and author of the treatise, said: Early skirmishes suggest that the so-called “meat tax” can fall into non-constructive cultural debates.
“A better solution is to help consumers move to a more sustainable diet by expanding the range of alternative protein products on the market. Products are of high quality and affordable. Consumers can only be expected to switch from eating meat if it is readily available at. “
Independent We contacted the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) for comment on the proposals outlined in the report.