🚨Massive news!🚨 FAO distorted evidence to “systematically underestimate” emissions savings from more plant-based diets. Real potential = about 6 to 40 times higher than the 2-5% reductions that the FAO claimed. The FAO based its claims on serious distortions of papers by Paul Behrens and Matthew Hayek , who are now calling for FAO to retract the report. The FAO's major statistical errors/distortions include: 🚨Double-counting meat emissions until 2050 🚨Mixing different baseline years in analyses 🚨Focusing on outdated Nationally Recommended Diets - many have since been updated to recommend less meat intake 🚨Ignoring a wealth of evidence from studies examining more ambitious meat reduction 🚨Failing to factor in the carbon sequestration potential of restoring nature on land spared by lower meat consumption “The scientific consensus at the moment is that dietary shifts are the biggest leverage we have to reduce emissions and other damage caused by our food system. But the FAO chose the roughest and most inappropriate approach to their estimates and framed it in a way that was very useful for [pro-livestock] interest group” Behrens told the Guardian. Read Guardian coverage: https://lnkd.in/ezm2P_fF #food #meat #plantbased #lessandbettermeat #climatechange #climatecrisis #biglivestock #defundbiglivestock
thanks, very interesting and important topic, feels like there is still a very successfull pro-beef lobby far too successfull in driving the narratives
Good to see this coming to light Martin Bowman - I remember us talking about it a few months ago! Daniel Braune FYI
I'm so disappointed to see this. We must have quality data from unbiased institutions. We won't be able to solve our biggest problems without a solid foundation of shared reality.
It’s an interesting read, and it’s true that the mitigation potential of dietary changes is calculated far below the IPCC-reporting. Still there are questions remaining independently from any scenario modeling: 1. If the assumption “the more plant-based, the better” for GHG emissions of the food systems is valid, then we should have already a model-world. Simply, because total food supply worldwide is already 80% plant-based (see FAOSTAT). Compared to Planetary Health Diet that recommends 69-74% plant-based, there should be an effect. 2. Still the IPCC-reporting is giving three projections: technical, plausible and feasible. Realistic is feasible. At the same time many models do not consider nutrient-supply at all, they just calculate on weight, calories or protein. Protein from plants is not of same value like protein from animals. Those models are useless for translation into reality. 3. If the authors of the letter have concerns about FAO-modeling why do they not claim similar corrections for other modeling-studies so far, that neglect aforementioned facts or focus only on climate impact, but ignore freshwater use or land-use where crop production for human consumption has its own trade-offs?
If we can’t count on the objectivity of such international bodies, one ponders whether they have reached obsolescence
The FAO appears to have adopted creative accounting practices reminiscent of those used by the Center for Consumer Freedom in their approach
This is absolutely appalling, the continued work against adopting a more sustainable diet is shocking. It is amazing to watch old TV shows and see the propaganda from the meat & dairy industries.
What on earth???!? Great that they’ve caught and gone public w this, but WHY did they underestimate initially??!!?
Food waste and industrial livestock campaigner. Senior Policy & Campaigns Manager at Feedback.
5moIt's worth reading the letter in full to understand the sheer scale of the FAO's statistical errors and distortion of evidence: https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/science/environmental-sciences/research/food