British farmers and scientists are embroiled in a row after a group of academics said the harms of the meat industry are comparable to those from alcohol, tobacco and fossil fuels.

Such comparisons “make no sense” and are “reckless and unjustified”, farmers say, who maintain that meat can play a role in improving both human and environmental health. 

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) published a first-of-its-kind study looking at how six farming organisations in the UK portray the sector. 

The scientists claim the industry may be attempting to minimise the impact of farming in the minds of the public. 

Dr Kathryn Clare, lead author from LSHTM, said: “There is growing evidence to suggest that current consumption trends of red and processed meat are a threat to both human health and the health of the planet and this is increasingly being recognised in UK policy spheres. 

“Our findings suggest that the meat industry may be using various frames that counteract this narrative.”

Calls for increased scrutiny of sector

“These findings should act as a call to action for greater scrutiny of the industry, as addressing people’s appetite for meat will be crucial to efforts to avert climate breakdown and improve public health,” added Dr James Milner, senior author from LSHTM.

Writing in their paper, the scientists say the methods employed by farming organisations are in line with a “well-thumbed playbook” used by producers of “other harmful commodities”, such as alcohol, tobacco and fossil fuels, to portray their products in a more favourable light.

The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) was the most heavily scrutinised of the six organisations, with ten documents (four reports and six quotes) included in the peer-reviewed study, which has been published in the journal Food Policy. 

“It is reckless and unjustified for this study to compare the UK livestock sector with commodities such as tobacco and fossil fuels, where there is a very strong scientific consensus about harm to human health and the environment,” Tom Bradshaw, NFU deputy president, told The Telegraph. 

“Arguments about diet and food production are much more nuanced, complex, and widely debated among scientists.

“When customers purchase British red meat products, they are buying sustainable, local food, often raised in areas where it is difficult to grow other foods. The same cannot always be said for some highly processed plant-based foods.”

‘Comparisons make no sense’

A spokesperson from Hybu Cig Cymru (Meat Promotion Wales), which was not included in the study, told The Telegraph: “It makes no sense to compare meat, which has been an important nutritious part of people’s diet for millions of years, with harmful products with no nutritional value, like tobacco.

“It’s widely recognised that meat in moderation can be a healthy part of a balanced diet, and independent scientific studies have shown that beef and lamb reared on non-intensive farms in these islands have a far lower emissions footprint than some of the bad environmental practices elsewhere in the world.”