Researcher Network member, Emily Holmes, presents a thorough exploration of her research into food-system change, questioning which foods are being produced and the impact of Brexit on a transition to a plant-based protein, revealing both potential challenges and leverage-points for livestock farmers to transition to pulses in the UK.
Humans have become the leading cause of planetary changes, threatening the very earth systems that life depends on (Rockström et al., 2009). Scientists have identified the global food-system as pivotal in both causing and addressing environmental challenges, highlighting a need to reduce global meat consumption and increase plant-based diets (Springmann et al., 2018; IAP, 2018; Chaudhary, Gustafson, & Mathys, 2018; Lang & Heasman, 2015; Tilman & Clark, 2014). Yet by fixating on dietary recommendations, much of the focus remains at a consumer rather than a production level. However, for food-system change we need to question which foods are being produced, and not only which foods are being eaten.
In 2017, 72% of the UK’s land was used for agriculture (Defra, 2018a), predominantly for livestock farming (Eurostat, 2017) and producing livestock fodder. However, livestock farming may be intensifying Britain’s struggles to meet legally binding GHG emission targets (Committee on Climate Change, n.d.), contributing to high biodiversity loss (Hayhow et al., 2016) and adding to nitrogen pollution. As a healthy and nutritious protein and iron source, pulse cultivation presents an appealing alternative to livestock. In addition to health properties, pulses advance food security at all levels, contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and enhance biodiversity, among other benefits (FAO, 2017). Most parts of Britain are well suited to growing pulses, and Britain is already the world’s top marrowfat and third largest fava bean exporter (The Andersons Centre, 2015). Furthermore, research indicates that if Britain’s pulse production were to double, a market already exists to absorb the increase (The Andersons Centre, 2015). Therefore, the British government could both reduce and mitigate the negative environmental impacts of meat production by focussing on encouraging pulse production as a healthy food and farming alternative.
Although Brexit polarized opinions, it has presented Britain with a unique opportunity to change its agricultural model at a time when scientists are calling for critical food-system change. Speeches by Michael Gove, the British Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, focus on Britain producing environmentally friendly healthy food, which is predicted to result in Britain’s biggest agricultural changes over the last 70 years (Coe, 2018). Furthermore, the proposed post-Brexit Agricultural Bill (2017-2019) recommends dismantling the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) which provides farmers with subsidies determined by farm-size and replacing it with public payments for public goods. This translates as paying farmers who promote “environmental enhancement, protection and enjoyment; better animal health and welfare; healthy crops, trees, plants and bees; and preserving rural resilience and traditional farming landscapes in the uplands” (Defra, 2018b, para20). The proposed agricultural changes present an opportunity to support environmentally friendly farming, while reducing Britain’s livestock-centred farming approach.
Despite strong environmental and health motives, transitioning Britain’s livestock centred-agriculture to pulses would entail big challenges. As the main agents of food production, farmers are best positioned to understand these challenges. Thus, after exploring the sustainability benefits of shifting from livestock to pulses, interviews with livestock farmers provide insight on how the government, the market, and farmers’ identity shape farmers’ agricultural decisions. This exploration reveals both potential challenges and leverage-points for livestock farmers to transition to pulses in the UK.
Sustainability benefits for the UK to transition from livestock to pulses
In 2008, the UK set a historical precedent becoming the first country to set legally binding greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction targets via the Climate Change Act 2008. The act commits to reducing GHG emissions at least 80% by 2050[1]. Despite progress in reducing emissions, the UK is struggling to meet ambitious targets (Committee on Climate Change, n.d.). Although emissions have reduced by 42%, the UK is still not on target to meet the 2023-2027 carbon budget (Committee on Climate Change, n.d.) which requires reducing domestic emissions by 3% or more per year.
The agricultural sector is responsible for 10% of the UK’s GHG emissions. These agricultural emissions are predominantly composed of methane (57%) followed by nitrous oxide (32%). Methane emissions are mainly released by cattle, while nitrous oxide is predominantly from fertilizer use (BEIS, 2018). The agricultural sector achieved 16% GHG emission reductions between 1990 and 2016, connected to a decrease in livestock numbers (BEIS, 2018). Although most agricultural emissions continue to be released by livestock, the UK’s 2008 Climate Change Act focuses on efficiency of management methods to reduce agricultural emissions, and not agricultural type. Reducing livestock farming could help the UK to meet these targets.
Although estimates vary on how much livestock contributes to total GHG emissions globally (Herrero et. al, 2015), livestock remains the leading source of the world’s methane and nitrous oxide emissions (Harwatt, Sabate, Eshel, Soret & Ripple, 2017). Additionally, some research suggests livestock produces more emissions than the world’s entire transportation sector (EPA, 2017; Harwatt et al., 2017). One reason for livestock’s’ high emissions is their fodder, creating more emissions than crop proteins for human consumption, while also causing 67% of deforestation (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Furthermore, as animal products are ‘prone to spoilage’, they have high wastage (Poore & Nemecek, 2018, p. 991). Thus, discussing meat production and consumption is vital in the context of tackling climate change.
Contrastingly, pulses produce vastly lower emissions. Based on 52 studies, Nijdam, Rood and Westhoek (2012) concluded that while a kilo of beef releases an average 25.5 kg CO2e, beans release an average of 1.1 kg CO2e. Furthermore, pulse’s carbon footprint can be up to 150 times lower than meat’s (Nijdam, Rood & Westhoek, 2012). A revelatory study by Harwatt et al., (2017) calculated that if beef consumption was substituted with bean consumption in the United States, CO2e emissions would reduce by 334 mmt, which would achieve 75% of the US’s GHG reduction target for 2020 (Harwatt et al, 2017).
Not only avoiding climate change but adapting to climate change presents a challenge for the future of food production globally. While weather fluctuations have challenged farmers throughout history, climate change is enhancing the severity and uncertainty of weather patterns, which can result in both flooding and drought. Fresh water is particularly concerning in various parts of the UK, where London is one of the world’s driest capitals comparable to Israel in terms of water availability per capita (London Climate Change Partnership, 2002). Research suggests the UK will experience widespread water scarcity by 2050, with a predicted deficit of between 5 - 16% of the total water demand (Holmes, 2017). Thus, when making sustainable agriculture choices, the effects of climate change need to be considered.
Globally, agriculture accounts for 92% of anthropogenic freshwater use (Gerbens-Leenes, Mekonnen, & Hoekstra, 2013), with livestock requiring far higher water inputs per calorie than their plant-based counterparts. For example, as cows are the most water intensive farm animal, beef requires almost ten times more water per calorie than pulses, and 112 litres of water per gram of protein produced compared to 19 litres for pulses (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012). Not only does farming livestock consume more water than crops for human consumption, farm animals also need more water in hotter weather. Therefore, in times of drought livestock place further strain on limited resources, negatively affecting food security. Pulses on the other hand present an excellent crop to mitigate the effects of climate change, thus enhancing food security. Not only do they require less water than other crops, they are also ‘hardier’ in general, ‘withstanding severe weather like droughts and floods [...] thus acting as an unflinching David to the Goliath ravages of climate change’ (FAO, 2017, p. 39). Pulses also enhance carbon sequestration in the soil which further contributes to counteracting climate change (FAO, 2017).
Biodiversity is also an urgent concern when considering environmental sustainability of food-systems. Biodiverse environments are important for ensuring healthy eco-systems and crop pollination, yet biodiversity loss has far surpassed its safe planetary boundary (Rockström et al., 2009). Combatting biodiversity loss is an especially crucial challenge for the UK as one of the world's ‘most nature depleted countries’ (Hayhow et al., 2016, p. 5). Government data on farmland birds is particularly concerning, showing a population decrease of more than 50% since 1970 (Defra, 2017). Bird populations are referred to as an indicator for the UK’s general wildlife status because birds ‘occupy a wide range of habitats and respond to environmental pressures that also operate on other groups of wildlife’ (Defra, 2017 p. 39) and thus the sharp decline in birds is troubling for biodiversity as a whole. Insect populations have also decreased dramatically, with habitat specialist butterflies declining 74% since 1976 and butterflies in the countryside by 57% (Defra, 2017, p. 40). Agricultural intensification is attributed as the greatest cause for biodiversity loss in the UK. A collaborative study conducted by research and nature conservation organizations indicated that intensified grazing regimes and increased fertiliser, pesticide and herbicide use were among the primary drivers for nature loss (Hayhow et. al, 2016, p. 16).
Arable crops can provide both food and valuable nesting habitats for farmland birds (RSPB, n.d.). Furthermore, pulses provide added benefits being excellent for soil health largely due to their nitrogen fixing ability. Each hectare of pulses adds between 30-40 kg of nitrogen to the soil, requiring little to no nitrogen fertilizer (FAO, 2016) and thus reducing need for harmful artificial fertilizers. By improving soil health, pulses can also improve future yields in crop rotations and improve ecosystem resilience by heightening crops’ ability to deal with disturbances, disease and diseases (FAO, 2017).
Thus, reducing and replacing livestock with pulse production would support the environmental sustainability of Britain’s food-system, also helping Britain prepare for the effects of climate change. Reducing livestock would lower GHG emissions helping the UK to meet legally binding emission targets. Furthermore, it would reduce agricultural fresh-water use and promote biodiversity at a time when wildlife is disappearing at an exponential rate.
A sustainable food-system also requires acknowledging the nutritional value of food once consumed. Focussing on output rather than nutrition and food distribution has contributed to global ill health. Despite enough crops for all people, 40% of the world's crops are used as fodder while over 10% of the world population still experiences hunger (FAO, 2012). Furthermore, globally the top causes of death are dietary related (WHO, 2017). Meat is a leading course of dietary related ill-health, associated with increased cancer risks, obesity, and increased mortality (Genkinger & Koushik, 2007; Wang & Beydoun, 2009, Bouvard et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016). Thus, there is an imbalance between those who cannot access food, and those who can access food yet have unhealthy diets.
Governments are noting the connection between meat rich diets and common non-communicable diseases, consequently producing dietary guidelines which recommend eating less meat and more pulses (Netherlands Nutrition Centre, 2017; ANSES, 2017; Buttriss, 2017). China provides a striking example of addressing meat consumption by announcing ambitious plans in 2016 to curb meat consumption 50% by 2030 (Milman & Leavenworth, 2016). The UK government’s 2016 health guidelines are also in line with changing perceptions on meat and pulses. The official guideline’s food segment which was previously labelled “meat, fish, eggs, beans and other non-dairy sources of protein” has been replaced with “beans, pulses, fish, eggs, meat and other proteins” (British Nutrition Foundation, 2016). This new positioning illustrates how pulses have moved to the forefront.
Pulses are gaining attention as a valuable health source as they not only provide a rich source of protein, fibre, vitamins and minerals, but they also contain antioxidants and anti-carcinogens (Mudryj, Yu & Aukema, 2014). Accordingly, the United Nations (UN) named 2016 International Year of Pulses based on both their health and environmental benefits. Thus, increasing pulse production would provide a national food source that corresponds with the UK’s dietary guidelines.
Although animal ethics are not prevalent in the sustainable food-system debate, animal welfare is the British public’s central agricultural concern, and therefore should also be acknowledged when making sustainable agriculture choices. When asked in a 2015 European Commission poll what farmers’ main responsibilities should be, 55% of Britons responded it should be animal welfare (European Commission, 2016). Thus Britons differed from other European countries polled by prioritising animal welfare over food production. However, concern for animal’s wellbeing is not limited to the UK. Across Europe numerous governments, including France, Switzerland, Austria and Germany, formally acknowledged animals as sentient beings revealing an increased awareness over animal welfare (Cardoso & Pereira, 2017). Although the British government does not have legislation stating animals are sentient, it has stated that legislation will be introduced after Brexit acknowledging animal sentience and providing stronger sentences for animal cruelty (Ares, 2018).
Not only animal welfare, but debates over using animals as resources are gaining visibility (Erdős, 2015). These debates question the very use of animals as food in societies where healthy alternatives are readily available. One visible example is the steep increase in vegans, with veganism becoming the UK’s fastest growing lifestyle movement (The Vegan Society, 2016). One recent poll found that a third of Britons had either a “meat-free or meat-reduced diet” (Waitrose & Partners, 2018, p.6) citing animal welfare as the primary motive for following a vegetarian or vegan diet. Animal welfare has also been cited in other studies on motivations for following vegetarian and or vegan diets (Janssen, Busch, Rödiger, & Hamm, 2016; Jones, 2018)
A reduction in livestock farming to be replaced by pulses would support the British government’s sustainable farming goals by reducing emissions, fresh-water use and supporting biodiversity. Additionally, it would promote UK citizens’ health providing a nutritious protein source which corresponds with official food guidelines. Furthermore, if acted upon, this shift would come at a time when UK consumers are increasingly ethically motivated to shift to plant-based diets, and thus pulses would provide a healthy, sustainable, domestic protein food-source
Potential challenges and leverage points for a livestock to pulse transition
Uncovering potential challenges and leverage-points for livestock farmers to transition to pulses first requires a better understanding of what shapes farmers’ decisions. Interviews with five livestock farmers identified three core categories shaping farmers’ decisions: the government, the market, and farmers’ identity.
The government featured most prominently in the interviews, holding a highly influential role for farmers due to provision of subsidies and grants. The government has controlled and financially upheld UK agriculture for centuries, however the government’s central role may be changing. Following Brexit, direct-payments will likely be removed and replaced with payments for public goods. While in theory this could benefit farmers practicing sustainable agriculture, in practice, the extent to which the government will provide support is not yet apparent. Therefore, farmers may increasingly need to make choices aligned with trade opportunities. Thus, to shift to pulses, farmers would need to be confident that a stable market exists.
Although the government and the market influenced the interviewed farmers, decisions also appeared to be shaped by their identity, and particularly their values connected to local biodiversity. Furthermore, the farmer’s values influenced whether they supported or criticised mandatory government policies. Accordingly, to encourage a shift from livestock to pulses, the government, the market, and identity should not be considered as separate entities, but rather how they interact as a whole.
Perhaps, the most encouraging leverage-point was that farmers displayed high-capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. While this came as no surprise as farmers have been adapting to changing climates and governance over millenniums, the interviews shed light on which circumstances encouraged and/or discouraged the farmers to make changes. All interviewed farmers had implemented changes; some substantial, for example moving from dairy farming to beef and ewe farming, and others smaller, like investing in more efficient machinery. Some of these changes were forced upon farmers, for example when the government implemented cross-compliance requirements, or when farmers were forced to leave dairy once dropping dairy prices substantially reduced their income. Although coercion from government or market forces is one way to change agricultural models, coercion conflicts with farmers’ values of freedom, and therefore employing coercion may push farmers out of farming.
However not all changes farmers implemented were a result of coercion. Farmers seemed willing to ‘try something new’ if they were confident it would be possible and profitable, and thus presenting pulses as possible and profitable would create a leverage-point. Yet growing pulses may be challenging for some farmers. One farmer stated their soil type made it challenging to grow any crop other than grass, which although not insurmountable, creates a formidable barrier to growing pulses. However, three out of five farmers interviewed grew other crops including wheat, barley, oats, beans and rape seed oil giving them valuable arable experience if they were to shift to pulses. Furthermore, one farmer had also successfully grown pulses, indicating that for many farmers pulse-production would be possible. Most places in UK are suitable for growing pulses, and as the world’s top marrowfat and third largest fava bean exporter (The Andersons Centre, 2015), pulses are something the UK has already proven to grow well. Additionally, pulses may become attractive to farmers due to the UK’s changing weather, which has increased input costs for livestock farming. Pulses adaptability to climate change (FAO, 2017) makes them a sensible crop for a warming Britain, with the added benefit of improving the soil quality.
Government investment in research could increase farmers’ confidence by informing how to produce high yields and quality in the UK climate (The Andersons Centre, 2015; The New Economic Foundation, 2017). One farmer specifically sought out new research to improve their farming methods, and therefore government investments in pulse-research would present a leverage-point by strengthening farmers’ confidence in their ability to grow pulses. Thus, while in certain cases the natural environment, for example soil type, will deter farmers from growing pulses, government funded-research could inform farmers when it would be possible and advantageous to grow pulses. Furthermore, farmers experience growing crops as livestock fodder could provide a leverage-point in a transition to pulses.
However, even if it is possible for farmers to grow pulses it also needs to be profitable for farmers to transition. As was also found in previous research, money was not farmers’ central motivator (Warren et al., 2016; Burton, 2004), yet farmers still need an income to survive. Farmers may fear that pulses would provide lower returns than other crops or livestock (The New Economic Foundation, 2017), thus acting as a barrier to transition. This fear may hold merit. Although one farmer had successfully grown pulses, they ceased to do so because it was more profitable to import protein-crops for fodder than to produce them ‘at home’. As soy can be imported into the UK as an oilseed without import tariffs, it can be much cheaper for farmers to import soy for fodder than to cultivate protein-crops on their farm (The New Economic Foundation, 2017) which consequently removes the incentive to do so. However, pulse prices are increasing, with the UK’s Farmers Weekly stating “[s]trong prices resulting from a tighter pulse market mean [pulses] are worth a look for 2019” (Allison, 2018). Furthermore, an increase in flexitarians, vegetarians and vegans is pushing national demand for meat alternatives (Butler, 2018), creating new market opportunities for pulses.
Although the outlook for pulses profitability and marketability is increasing, the market’s competitive nature increases risk for smaller farmers as they feel they need to “go in big” to be competitive. If farmers are not confident that they will succeed, and a large change or investment is required, the uncertainty and risk increase forming a challenge to transition. The government could boost farmers’ confidence by both offering financial incentives, and stimulating a market for pulses, thus turning challenges into leverage-points. Payments for ‘public goods’ provides the government with a perfect opportunity to financially prioritise pulses for their lower GHG emissions and water use, their contributions to biodiversity, and their health properties. Prioritizing pulses may give farmers a valuable financial boost to attempt cultivation, however farmers may be uncertain as to the longevity of government support. The government’s track-record of changing policies, for example stabilizing dairy farming prices before removing dairy support, makes relying on government income precarious. Furthermore, government bureaucracy and complicated processes have deterred farmers from using the government for anything outside of basic support. Therefore, in order to be accessible processes should be simple and well communicated to farmers. However, the government could also increase farmers’ confidence in pulses profitability by stimulating the market for British pulses. One suggestion presented by the Vegan Society is for “government departments and local authorities to use UK-grown plant proteins as a staple meal in their canteens” (The New Economics Foundation, 2017, p. 26), which would effectively increase national demand and enable the government to create a leverage-point to encourage a pulse transition. Interviewed farmers were more confident to try something that had proven successful for their peers, and therefore if pulses provide profits for some farmers, this will encourage others to follow suit.
In addition to farmers responding to market and government circumstances, identity and values also played an important role in the interviewed farmers’ decision-making process. The interviews suggest that livestock farmers’ identity may present more of a leverage-point than a challenge in a sustainable agriculture transition. Although interviewed farmers enjoyed working with animals, which may make them reluctant to leave livestock farming behind, the environmental and animal values they presented were largely in-line with a pulse transition. Firstly, interviewed farmers highly valued animal welfare and developed relationships with their animals. Farmers discussed their forced detachment from animals destined for slaughter which connects them to the nationwide debate around animals as food. Although unusual, news outlets report of livestock farmers donating their animals to sanctuaries rather than sending them to slaughter (Timmins, 2017; Finnerty, 2017), and one interviewed farmer spoke of a sheep that was ‘vetoed’ to stay on the farm. The livestock/deadstock conundrum thus illustrates the complexity of relationships between farmers and their livestock as both intrinsic beings and ‘products’.
In addition to caring for their animals, farmers were passionate about biodiversity, taking multiple measures to protect local environments even if doing so came at a financial cost. For example, one farmer chose to enter an environmental stewardship scheme because they recognized the ecological importance of their farm’s location, stating “it’s a huge cost, being concerned about […] environmental issues”. If farmers feel that changes are compatible with their environmental values, particularly promoting local biodiversity, they may be more willing to accept and even embrace changes. Thus, raising farmers’ awareness as to how pulses can promote biodiversity and benefit the environment as a whole could make farmers environmental values a leverage-point for an agricultural transition. If the government aligns farmers’ financial support with initiatives that support farmers’ values (particularly environment, freedom and daily diversity), the government has the potential to steer farming in desired directions by harnessing farmers support. In this case, increased ‘public goods’ payments for pulse farming combined with sharing the knowledge of how this would support a sustainable future for Britain’s agriculture, could help encourage an agricultural shift. Moreover, as farmers changing from livestock to pulses would still retain their farming way of life, they would also retain the freedom they so value as farmers.
However, even when farmers are confident that a change would be possible, profitable and aligned with their values, retirement age could present a barrier to farmers changing farm type. Farmers nearing retirement were less willing to change farming practices as they felt they would not see the outcomes of their efforts. Previous research has presented contradicting results for how age impacts farmers’ disposition for change. While Convery et al., (2012) also reported that older farmers were less willing to adopt changes, research by Warren et al., (2016) found that older farmers were actually more willing to engage in innovation. Thus, presenting the challenge that “establishing causal relationships between farmers’ demographic characteristics and their decisions is complex” (Warren et al., 2016, p. 181). Yet, if age does present a barrier to change as my interviews indicate, this would challenge an agricultural transition as most farmers in the UK are nearing or past retirement age. By 2010 the average farmers’ age was 59 years old, with ages 65 and over forming the largest age group of farmers at 34% (Defra et al., 2017). Furthermore, only 13% of agricultural workers were under 44 (Defra et al., 2017). Although the aging population of farmers will likely create challenges for sustaining any form of agriculture, this challenge could also present a valuable leverage-point. It may well be easier to support a new pulse farmer than encourage an experienced livestock farmer to undergo a farm-type transformation. Thus, encouraging new pulse farmers could form an important step for the government to promote the UK’s sustainable food-system future.
By taking the initiative to promote an agricultural shift to pulses, the British government would be filling an important gap by shifting the focus from consumers to producers. To create a sustainable food-system, agricultural production should follow scientists’ recommendations by reducing livestock in favour of pulses. Although UK agriculture presents a small percentage of the global whole, this should not diminish the UK’s sense of responsibility. Scientists, government, consumers and the interviewed farmers are aligned in their desire for a sustainable food-system. Brexit presents the UK with a special opportunity to deliver, promoting pulses as a pathway to achieving our shared goals.
References
Allison, R. (30 Nov, 2018). Why prospects are looking up for peas and beans in 2019.
Ares, E. (2018). Animal Sentience and Brexit [Commons Briefing papers CBP-8155].
Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., El Ghissassi, F., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., ... & Straif, K. (2015). Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology, 16(16), 1599-1600.
British Nutrition Foundation. (2016). Beans, pulses, fish, eggs, meat and other proteins [PDF document].
Burton, R. (2004). Seeing Through the ‘Good Farmer's’ Eyes: Towards Developing an Understanding of the Social Symbolic Value of ‘Productivist’ Behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(2), 195-215.
Butler, S. (June 8, 2018). Appetite grows for vegan products at UK supermarkets.
Buttriss, J. L. (2017). Eatwell Guide–the bare facts. Nutrition Bulletin, 42(2), 159-165.
Cardoso, Faraco, De Sousa, & Da Graça Pereira. (2017). History and evolution of the European legislation on welfare and protection of companion animals. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 19, 64-68.
Chaudhary, A., Gustafson, D., & Mathys, A. (2018). Multi-indicator sustainability assessment of global food systems. Nature communications, 9(1), 848.
Coe, S. (2018). The Agriculture Bill (2017-2019) (Briefing Paper Number CBP 8405).
Committee on Climate Change. (n.d.). How the UK is Progressing.
Convery, I., Robson, D., Ottitsch, A., & Long, M. (2012). Willingness of farmers to engage with bioenergy and woody biomass production: A regional case study from Cumbria. Energy Policy, 40, 293-300.
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). (2018). 2016 UK GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, FINAL FIGURES.
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra). (2017). Figure Farm Accounts in England – Results from the Farm Business Survey 2016/17.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)., Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)., Welsh Assembly Government, The Department for Rural Affairs and Heritage., The Scottish Government, Rural & Environment Science & Analytical Services. (2017). Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2016.
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra). (2018a). Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2017.
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra). (2018b). Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit – policy statement.
Erdős, L. (2015). Veganism versus Meat-Eating, and the Myth of “Root Capacity”: A Response to Hsiao. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(6), 1139-1144.
European Commission. (2016). Special Eurobarometer 440; The Common Agricultural Policy. [PDF document].
Eurostat. (2017). Agricultural census in the UK.
FAO. (2012). Livestock and Landscapes.
FAO. (2016). Pulses; nutritious seeds for a sustainable future [PDF document].
FAO. (2017). Wrapping up the International Year of Pulses.
Finnerty, C. (Aug 11, 2017). Irish farmer to send 70 cows to UK sanctuary to save them from slaughter.
French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES). (2017). ANSES updates its food consumption guidelines for the French population.
Genkinger, J. M., & Koushik, A. (2007). Meat consumption and cancer risk. PLoS medicine, 4(12), e345.
Gerbens-Leenes, Mekonnen, & Hoekstra. (2013). The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems. Water Resources and Industry, 1-2(C), 25-36.
Harwatt, H., Sabaté, J., Eshel, G., Soret., S & Ripple, W. (2017). Substituting beans for beef as a contribution toward US climate change targets. Climate Change. 143 (1-2), 261-270.
Hayhow, D. B., Burns, F., Eaton, M. A., Al Fulaij, N., August, T. A., Babey, L., ... & Gregory, R. D. (2016). State of Nature 2016. The State of Nature partnership. [Report].
Herrero, M., Wirsenius, S., Henderson, B., Rigolot, C., Thornton, P., Havlik, P., . . . Gerber, P.J. (2015). Livestock and the environment: What have we learned in the past decade? Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40, 177-202.
Holmes, G. (2017). Under pressure: Preparing for UK water shortages.
Janssen, Busch, Rödiger, & Hamm. (2016). Motives of consumers following a vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture. Appetite, 105, 643-651
Jones, L. (18 June 2018). Veganism: Why is it on the up? BBC.
Lang, T., & Heasman, M. (2015). Food wars: The global battle for mouths, minds and markets (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
London Climate Change Partnership. (2002). London’s warming; The Impacts of Climate Change on London [pdf].
Mekonnen, M., & Hoekstra, M. (2012). A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Ecosystems, 15(3), 401-415.
Milman, O., & Leavenworth, (20 Jun 2016) China's plan to cut meat consumption by 50% cheered by climate campaigners.
Mudryj, A. N., Yu, N., & Aukema, H. M. (2014). Nutritional and health benefits of pulses. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 39(11), 1197-1204.
Netherlands Nutrition Centre. (2017). Eating more sustainably.
Nijdam, D., Rood, T., & Westhoek, H. (2012). The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food policy, 37(6), 760-770.
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science (New York, N.Y.), 360(6392), 987-992.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E., ... & Nykvist, B. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and society, 14(2).
Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D'Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B., Lassaletta, L., . . . Willett, W. (2018). Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature, 562(7728), 519-525.
The Andersons Centre. (2015). Revealing the opportunities for growing peas and beans in the UK.
The InterAcademy Partnership (IAP). (2018). Global food systems are failing humanity and speeding up climate change: New report from 130 national academies issues wake-up call to leaders on eve of COP24.
The New Economics Foundation. (2017). Grow Green: Sustainable Solutions for the Farm of the Future.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). (n.d.). Arable crops on livestock farms.
The Vegan Society. (2016). Find out how many vegans are in Great Britain.
Tilman, D & Clark, M., (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515(7528), 518-22.
Timmins, B. (14 June 2017). Vegetarian farmer saves cow herd from abattoir by donating it to animal sanctuary. The Independent.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2017). Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data.
Waitrose & Partners. (2018). Food & Drink Report 2018-2019: The Era of the Mindful Consumer.
Wang, X., Lin, X., Ouyang, Y. Y., Liu, J., Zhao, G., Pan, A., & Hu, F. B. (2016). Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Public health nutrition, 19(5), 893-905.
Wang, Y., & Beydoun, M. A. (2009). Meat consumption is associated with obesity and central obesity among US adults. International Journal of Obesity, 33(6), 621.
Warren, Burton, Buchanan, & Birnie. (2016). Limited adoption of short rotation coppice: The role of farmers' socio-cultural identity in influencing practice. Journal of Rural Studies, 45, 175-183.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2017). Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs).
The views expressed by our Research News contributors are not necessarily the views of The Vegan Society.
The views expressed by our Research News contributors are not necessarily the views of The Vegan Society.
