Many thanks for your comments. It sounds like we are reading this report differently. The point we are making (based on the report) is that the facts are clear that the case against beef is based largely on reports that are flawed. Some beef comes from cows raised exclusively on grass and feed grown with synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. Other beef is produced without this reliance on fossil fuels. That difference matters. Our case stands, no matter how uncomfortable you feel about it — “science” based on self-reporting and the subsequent campaigns for food choice are very scary. We need a sustainable, robust food supply — and to be sure, this isn’t simple — but to vilify an entire industry because the EPA has no real data doesn’t get us anywhere. When new facts emerge, we have to reassess our assumptions. A case in point: Livestock’s Long Shadow, a well-written, highly respected report on the impacts of industrial meat, just admitted its mistakes in the face of this new information: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html

I hope we can agree that change is needed, but the change must be based on sound science and valid data.

Empowering sustainable solutions in agriculture and transparency in food production for farmers and consumers | https://agreenerworld.org/

Empowering sustainable solutions in agriculture and transparency in food production for farmers and consumers | https://agreenerworld.org/