17
submitted 2 days 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

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

255 grams/week of pork or poultry

#savedyouaclick

[-] FelixCress@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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

[-] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

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

[-] FelixCress@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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

[-] propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe 6 points 2 days ago

The real problem is that people like you are proud and joke about what should be a serious topic.

[-] wols@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days 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 2 days 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 2 days 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 2 days 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")

[-] propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe 3 points 2 days ago

What you say doesn't apply to hunting.

[-] Gold_E_Lox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago

what you say doesnt apply to 99% of the anglosphere this article will reach

[-] MTK@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

The climate part doesn't but hunting is the source for about less than 1% of the meat in the world, so your comment is really out of the context of this post.

And the moral part applies to hunting in modern countries, as well.

[-] shani66@ani.social 2 points 1 day ago

Morality really doesn't come into it at all.

[-] MTK@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
17 points (100.0% liked)

World News

135 readers
456 users here now

!usa@ponder.cat

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS