INDUSTRY has slammed biased research which claims ending animal agriculture and planting trees on the empty fields is the best and most immediate chance to slow climate change.
The study, carried out by Professor Patrick Brown from Stamford University, who also happens to be the chief executive of vegan brand Impossible Foods, and Professor Michael Eisen from the University of California, Berkeley, a consultant for the company, modelled the impact of ending animal agriculture over the next 15 years across the world.
They claimed the plan would take the planet half way to the net emissions reductions needed to limit global warming to 2C, the threshold to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
But Dr Jonathan Foot, head of environment at AHDB, said: Overlooking its distinct lack of independence, as a study conducted by the chief executive of a leading plant-based company, the report is yet another flawed modelling study using scaled up global emissions, with oversimplified assumptions which draw unrealistic conclusions about the impact of removing livestock from food production.
Failure to consider whether such a move would produce enough food for a growing global population, or the socioeconomic impact on developing countries, is a grossly significant omission.
Livestock and crop production are intrinsically linked, so removing one greatly impacts the productivity of the other. The marriage between well-managed grasslands and grazing livestock can and does provide highly sustainable food production, like what we see here in the UK.
Farmers Union of Wales deputy president Ian Rickman also branded the study misleading.
The best chance of slowing climate change is to reduce emissions, as opposed to offsetting them via trees, he said.
Mr Rickman was speaking after a series of reports of wealthy investors buying up Welsh farmland to plant trees for offsetting purposes.
NFU Cymru president John Davies told Farmers Guardian he was vehemently opposed to the greenwashing of Wales productive landscapes, with its knock-on effects on rural communities.
It is encouraging that there are many reputable figures in the scientific community who have acknowledged these recent proposals to eradicate animal agriculture are impractical and will not produce the desired results, he said.
Some commentators have stressed that efforts would perhaps be better focused on sectors whose contribution to the causes of climate change are far greater and do not appear to be making the same concerted efforts to reduced their share of emissions.
