Scientists from various European universities published a rebuttal to The Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock in the journal Nature Food today.
Lead author Chris Bryant, honorary research associate at the University of Bath and director at Bryant Research, described the paper as a “clear and concise takedown” of the declaration’s central argument: reducing meat consumption is unnecessary.
“Livestock is too precious”
The Dublin Declaration was launched at the Irish government agricultural agency Teagasc in 2022, signed by over 1,000 scientists. It has received media coverage in outlets like the Telegraph and the New York Post. The paper emphasizes the benefits of meat consumption in terms of nutrition, environment, and social aspects, describing livestock as “too precious to society to become the victim of simplification, reductionism or zealotry.”
Greenpeace investigations, confirmed by The Guardian, revealed that the declaration was authored by scientists with strong ties to the livestock industry, mainly researchers in animal, agricultural, and food sciences. Additionally, the declaration was supported by a special issue titled The Societal Role of Meat, published in the peer-reviewed journal Animal Frontiers in 2023, delving into the nutritional value of meat, the ethics of meat consumption, and the affordability of meat in the Global South. The paper is authored by the declaration’s organizing committee, including Dr. Peer Ederer, who runs the Global Food and Agribusiness Network (GFAN), a consultancy company for the meat sector.
According to Greenpeace, which calls the paper a “pro-meat manifesto,” prominent European agribusiness groups are using it to lobby senior EU officials against reducing meat consumption and sustainability policies.
Bryant comments, “The Dublin Declaration has been written by livestock industry activists to deliberately mislead policymakers into believing that there is no need to cut meat consumption.”
The rebuttal’s perspective
The rebuttal calls for nuance and emphasizes that acknowledging livestock production’s benefits and complexities is essential for a balanced and informed debate.
According to its authors, the Dublin Declaration fails to recognize the need to reduce industrial animal agriculture. It advocates for maintaining or increasing livestock numbers by highlighting their role in agroecology and as a source of proteins in low-income countries.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]”The arguments made in the Dublin Declaration have nothing to do with the argument that wealthy nations need to reduce industrial livestock production”[/perfectpullquote]
However, the paper argues that its emphasis on a minority of global livestock overlooks substantial evidence about the negative impacts of industrial livestock production and meat consumption in high-income countries.
The authors say that increasing animal production to resolve nutrition issues in low-income regions is flawed; it’s more about access to food than production deficits. They argue that existing food production can feed the global population without increasing industrial livestock production.
Bryant adds, “Essentially, the Dublin Declaration defends livestock by focusing on two types of livestock: livestock in the developing world, and livestock in agroecological systems. The problem is that both of these groups account for a tiny proportion of total global livestock.
“This means that the arguments made in the Dublin Declaration have nothing to do with the argument that wealthy nations need to reduce industrial livestock production.”
Wealthy nations
The paper says that most of the world’s meat consumption occurs in high and upper-middle-income countries, which should be the focus of reductions in animal production and consumption. Encouraging reductions in these regions could allow for increased consumption in low-income countries without raising total global consumption.
The paper sustains that there is a large body of evidence documenting the adverse effects of industrial livestock production and consumption of animal-sourced foods on human health and the environment. While animal products provide essential nutrients, they are not necessary for human health. Plant-based foods, fortified products, and supplements can provide these important nutrients, it says.
Aligning consumption in high—and upper-middle-income countries could allow global meat consumption to decline even with increased intake in low-income regions, improving overall human health, say the authors.
Bryant states, “The science strongly supports the human health and environmental case for meat reduction in wealthy nations. The authors of the Dublin Declaration have failed to refute that.”
