17
submitted 3 weeks ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/world@quokk.au

As governments and food companies scramble to meet sustainability targets, vague calls to eat some less but “better” meat no longer cut it to keep the planet healthy. To stay within planetary boundaries, we need to drastically reduce meat consumption, especially beef.

But the findings also offer a path beyond all-or-nothing thinking. It’s clear from the study that sustainable diets tend to rely heavily on plants, and the research identified multiple diets that meet health and environmental goals, from pescatarian to flexitarian to vegetarian.

Crucially, combatting climate change by addressing food systems isn’t just about individual choices (though some individual actions like eating less meat and cutting food waste do make a difference!). Personal responsibility alone won’t get us the whole way there. As the study emphasizes, “Achieving truly sustainable diets requires universal availability, which must be supported by policymakers at all levels.” Without clear policies and support from our institutions, consumers are left guessing, and the status quo remains

all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

255 grams/week of pork or poultry

#savedyouaclick

[-] FelixCress@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Well, that's what I am eating per day. Unless I am having a big, nice juicy steak 😁

[-] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

So... you're the reason for the climate apocalypse?

[-] FelixCress@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Definitely, we are all going to die because of my gluttony. And don't let me start talking about beer consumption.

[-] wols@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 weeks ago

In case anyone else didn't automatically know that means 255g/week:

In March 2025, researchers from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) found that to eat sustainably, individuals should consume no more than 255 grams — or about half a pound — of pork or poultry per week. The study also makes clear that beef, lamb and other red meats are not compatible with a sustainable future under current environmental constraints.

[-] MTK@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

"How much can you litter to keep the streets clean?" This is essentially the same. Makes it kind of obvious that the answer is 0, you shouldn't litter if you want the streets to be clean. Now if you littered a little bit would it neccessarily make the street so filthy that you wouldn't consider it clean anymore? Maybe not, but it objectively would not be clean.

You shouldn't eat meat if you care about the environment, that simple. But you could make the same argument about cars or planes or quite a few other things we all use. But meat is also murder so maybe don't contribute to it because of that as well?

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

On the other hand, reducing meat consumption by 90% is a LOT easier than reducing car travel by 90% for a lot of people who don't work from home or live near work.

[-] MTK@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

That is true, diet change is not easy to start with, but it is doable for the average person and gets easy after a few weeks to months, while excluding fossil fuels from your life is almost completely incompatible with modern countries and in some even impossible (water pumps and electric generators from your local government often uses fossil fuels and it's close to impossible to go that "off the grid")

this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
17 points (100.0% liked)

World News

300 readers
287 users here now

Please help and contribute as we vote on rules:
https://quokk.au/post/21590

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS