Food at COP26 might be labelled to show its carbon footprint, raising awareness of meat and dairy’s disproportionate impact compared to vegan alternatives, but why are politicians both local and national so averse to anything ‘plant-based’?

The catering at COP26, the UN Climate Summit currently taking place in Glasgow, has turned out to be much less “plant-forward” and “climate-friendly” than originally advertised. The daily menu features more meat and dairy dishes than plant-based ones, with many labelled as “high-carbon” - which means they produced 1.6kg or more of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). 

While the inclusion of these high-carbon dishes is rightfully baffling climate campaigners, having their climate impact listed right next to that of plant-based dishes is certainly clear evidence of how much less damaging most of the plant-based food is. For example, haggis (normally made from sheep) neeps and tatties (parsnips and potatoes) is listed as having a climate footprint of 3.4kg CO2, compared to 0.6kg CO2 for the plant-based version. 

The UN catering team notes that “Today, an average meal has a carbon footprint of 1.7 kg CO2e in the UK. According to the WWF, we need to get this number down below 0.5 kg CO2e to reach the goals defined in the Paris Agreement.” In that case, one does wonder why they didn’t simply use the 0.5kg CO2e as a guide for deciding what to include on the menu, rather than just trying to help people make “better choices” with its climate labelling system.

And for the animal-based meals on the menu that have a comparable footprint to the plant-based options, let’s not forget that these also come with a side of animal exploitation and, often, other environmental harms such as keeping ecosystems in a depleted state.

Meanwhile, world leaders struck their first major deal on Monday to halt the destruction of the world’s forests by 2030. While such a deal has been made (and failed to achieve anything) before, this time the participation of China, Russia, and Brazil has made it all seem much more promising. However, the deal immediately came under fire for lacking detail on how it would be implemented, monitored, or enforced. Indeed, if the leaders were serious about their pledge, one of the first causes of deforestation they should tackle is animal agriculture.

To uphold its end of the deal, the UK would need to commit to an immediate moratorium of new intensive farms and create a plan to phase out existing ones - a demand very reasonably being made by the SCRAP Factory Farming campaign. In the past few years, intensive animal farms have expanded across the UK - there are now more than 1,000 intensive chicken farms and 200 intensive pig farms, as well as at least 20 American-style mega-dairies (where 700+ cows are kept indoors all year round) and 50 smaller “confinement units”. Animals in these systems are fed partly on soy, mostly imported from countries including Brazil and Argentina where deforestation to grow soy is rampant. In 2019, the British dairy industry used an estimated 360,000 tonnes of soy, making it the second-biggest consumer of soy-based animal feed after the poultry sector, which uses around 60 per cent of the UK’s soy imports. 

However, there hasn’t been a peep from Boris Johnson on this subject. Indeed, the government is so worried about being seen “to dictate consumer behaviour” that it deleted a document recommending people shift to plant-based diets from its Net Zero Strategy, published last month. 

Never miss an article

Stay up-to-date with the weekly Surge newsletter to never miss an article, media production or investigation. We respect your privacy.

Will other parts of the public sector be more responsive to the clear climate benefits of a plant-based diet? As COP26 is taking place in Glasgow, campaign group Plant Based Treaty is urging Glasgow City Council to endorse the treaty - which demands no more expansion of animal agriculture, a transition from animal- to plant-based food systems, and ecological restoration - in order to put pressure on the Scottish national government to negotiate an international Plant Based Treaty.

So far, two cities have endorsed the Plant Based Treaty - the City of Boynton Beach in Florida, USA, and Rosario in Santa Fe, Argentina. In the UK, a small number of councils have either made their catering fully plant-based or are including more plant-based options. Lewisham, Faversham and Hythe Councils have all committed to serving only vegan options at council-hosted events, while Enfield has cut meat but not dairy from its catering. Leeds City Council plans to offer more vegan meals and have two meat-free days a week in its 182 primary schools. But others are clearly failing to grasp the impact of meat and dairy, or their role as a council in leading by example. Alsager Town Council in Cheshire recently voted down a motion to make its catering plant-based by default, only then to vote for a ban on almond milk. It would be interesting to know what tangible difference this could possibly make - unless they were all consuming almond milk in their tea and coffee, presumably very little. It should be noted, though, that even with the environmental impacts of almonds (particularly those grown in California, the world’s biggest almond producer), some food experts argue that it is still overall less harmful than cows’ milk for the environment and the climate.

But efforts to make councils embrace plant-based foods aren’t just about what the councillors eat and drink at their own meetings and events. The public sector spends more than £2 billion on food procurement every year for schools, hospitals, prisons, care homes, and government agencies and events. Contracts are given to various food suppliers that often last for several years at a time. Councils could choose not to give contracts for the supply of meat and dairy products, or to significantly minimise how much those products make up their procurement. 

Policies to make procurement more plant-based are being considered by local governments elsewhere in the world. In Canada, the city of Vancouver will soon vote on a motion to make its procurement more plant-based, with the Vancouver Sun reporting that Councillor Pete Fry “wants staff to investigate options that include a 20-per-cent reduction in three areas: all animal-based products, the most cost-intensive animal-based products, and/or most carbon-intensive animal-based.”

Such actions shouldn’t be considered “dictating consumer behaviour”, as the UK government so fears. After all, governments have been choosing an animal-based food system for years through procurement policies, nutritional guidance, and massive subsidies for animal agriculture.

Claire Hamlett is a freelance journalist, writer and regular contributor at Surge. Based in Oxford, UK, Claire tells stories that challenge systemic exploitation of and disregard for animals and the environment and that point to a better way of doing things.

Your support makes a huge difference to us. Supporting Surge with a monthly or one-off donation enables us to continue our work to end all animal oppression.

LATEST ARTICLES