Share:
Climate protection and health Meat consumption should be better halved
By the year 2050, Germans must halve their meat consumption, stop pesticide use in the fields and significantly reduce mineral fertilizer. In the opinion of Greenpeace, this must happen so that agriculture makes its contribution to climate protection. The measures would also be important for overall health.
Health reasons for a meat-free diet
Research has shown that fewer and fewer people eat meat. There are certainly enough health reasons for a meat-free diet. In particular, the preventive potential of a vegetarian or mainly plant-based diet for chronic diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases and cancer is highlighted. But those who reduce or stop their meat consumption also make an important contribution to the ecologic life.
According to Greenpeace, Germans must cut their meat consumption by half by 2050, stop pesticide use in the fields and significantly reduce mineral fertilizer. (Image: froto / fotolia.com) Reduced meat consumption for climate protection
It's no secret that meat consumption pollutes the climate and health. Those who eat more often or purely vegetarian, prevents diseases and protects the climate.
According to the environmental organization Greenpeace, agriculture must also contribute to achieving the Paris climate goals. In the "Kursbuch Agrarwende 2050 - Ökologisierte Landwirtschaft in Deutschland", the organization describes how a necessary agricultural turnaround can succeed with us.
The Germans must therefore reduce their meat consumption by 50 percent by the year 2050, pesticides must be banned from the fields and the mineral fertilizer significantly reduced.
Agriculture must also make a contribution
The scenario was calculated on behalf of the environmental organization by the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture (FIBL).
"Today's agriculture is designed for cheap mass production and has nothing to do with environmental and climate protection. The agricultural sector must finally make its contribution to Germany achieving its climate goals, "said Greenpeace agricultural expert Martin Hofstetter in a statement.
"Now Minister of Agriculture Schmidt is obliged to create the necessary framework for it."
Restructuring of the agricultural sector can succeed
According to Greenpeace, industrial agriculture in Germany causes a large number of environmental problems: over-fertilization contaminates soils and waters with too much nitrate and phosphate, pesticides increase species extinction, and large-scale stables produce harmful ammonia and climate-damaging greenhouse gases.
However, the study shows that the restructuring of the agricultural sector can succeed. The population can then be fed in a healthier way, despite lower yields ", it says in the press release.
While meat production and consumption must decline by 50 percent, food waste is said to have halved by 2050. At the same time, the cultivation of fruit and vegetables in Germany increases according to environmentally sound standards, ie without pesticides and with less fertilizer.
The FIBL assumes that by 2050 about 30 percent of agricultural land will be managed according to the guidelines of organic farming, the remaining 70 percent conventional, but then environmentally friendly.
Agriculture Minister Schmidt demanded for climate and environmental protection
As the environmental organization writes, Minister of Agriculture Christian Schmidt (CSU) must immediately implement the first measures for more climate and environmental protection. This includes a new fertilizer control system with longer shutdown periods, better application techniques and stricter controls, and a ban on bee-toxic pesticides.
Other experts have also called for a pesticide levy and a quick ban on particularly dangerous agricultural poisons.
In addition, Greenpeace calls for mandatory food labeling for meat and sausages, which can give consumers more guidance when shopping.
"People have to participate in the agricultural turnaround and be prepared to pay more for better food," says Hofstetter. "But the higher appreciation pays twice for the environment and health." (Ad)