Eliminating meat from your diet, even for a short period, has some surprising consequences, which can continue long after the abstinence period is over.
It is widely believed that Livestock farming has a major impact on the climate., and research indicates that switching to plant-based foods is one of the most effective steps you can take. individuals can to take action to reduce carbon emissions from food.
Animal products are responsible for 57 percent of emissions related to food, compared to plant-based foods, which contribute almost half as much, although animals provide less than a fifth of the world's total food energy.
Every year in January, millions of people around the world decide to give up animal-based foods for a month.
Others might decide to start the workweek every Monday with a meatless day or participate in a "meatless day" initiative called Vegan Before 6.
In addition to these initiatives, there are many efforts throughout the year to reduce meat intake.
- We checked the most common climate myths about food
- BBC experiment: Vegans and vegetarians - whose diet is less harmful to nature
- How heat waves affect food production
The concept of "less but better"means eating less meat, but making sure it is "ethically" produced.
"Reductionism," meanwhile, means that people simply reduce their intake of meat, dairy, and eggs.
People may have different reasons for reducing meat consumption, whether for animal welfare, climate or nutritional reasons.
Regardless of their motivation, a recent study has shown that low-meat diets can be beneficial across a wide range of environmental issues, with vegan diets producing fewer greenhouse gas emissions, consumes less water and has fewer consequences for biodiversity.
For those who change their diet for a shorter period of time, these effects may initially be reduced only during that period.
But there are indications that there could be some surprisingly lasting consequences that could last much longer than one January, one Monday a week, or whatever period of time someone might choose to avoid or reduce their consumption of animal products.
One of the most famous campaigns to reduce the intake of animal products is Veganuar, which encourages people to eat vegan food during the month of January.
According to their statistics, kwas founded in 2004. joined by about 25 million people from all over the world.
The campaign claims that the effects of a month without animal products can be extend beyond January, resulting in long-term changes in diet.
Based on its own survey, the Veganuar campaign claims that 81 percent of participants claimed to have maintained a significant reduction in meat intake even six months after participating in this initiative.
There are many reasons why these effects could continue long after a month.
Early research has linked participation in the initiative to an increased experience of "meat disgust."
Small independent study conducted on 40 participants who normally ate meat showed that those who reduced their meat intake in January were more likely to develop aversion to meat when the month ended (even though many of them were "sinful").
Of the 40 participants, 28 reported increased disgust for meat.
"The more meat people managed to eliminate during Veganuar, the more their disgust for meat increased during that month," says study author Elisa Becker.
"When you stop eating meat, the disgust only intensifies, which is really interesting."
"This suggests that just one month of abstinence from meat changes your perception of meat," adds the postdoctoral researcher from the University of Oxford, UK.
Becker also found a link between increased disgust for meat and reduced meat intake. in a larger six-month study conducted at the British University of Exeter.
The results showed that 74 percent of vegetarians were classified as "disgusted by meat."
"Both studies show a link between meat intake and disgust: the less you eat, the more disgusted you will be," says Becker.
The study did not look at the reasons why participants decided to give up meat, so it's possible that they already had some problems from before that contributed to the pre-existing feeling of disgust.
Emily Becker's findings were, however, confirmed and expanded upon in an unpublished study by authors Sophie Hearn and Natalia Lawrence conducted at the University of Exeter.
The results were recently presented at a conference, which the BBC had access to.
"This is a whole new area of social science research that seems to be revealing some pretty interesting and important things about the consequences of eating meat or the specific experience of reducing or eliminating meat from your diet, for example by taking part in Veganuary," says Carol Morris, from the School of Social Sciences at the University of Nottingham in the UK.
"If you engage in a meat reduction or elimination program for a period of time, it really seems to change your relationship with this food," adds Morris, who has also studied meat-reduction initiatives.
Watch the video: Can lab-grown meat mitigate climate change?
This field of research is still in its infancy, but Morris suggests that the phenomenon is worth further investigation.
"This could be some preliminary evidence suggesting that abstinence from meat may increase aversions to it," says Jared Piazza, from the UK's Lancaster University.
"All things considered, the relationship between meat abstinence and disgust is probably a simple feedback loop. Avoiding meat could, over time, change your appetite for meat," adds Piazza, who studies moral decision-making in relation to society, animals and food.
Research, he explains, "shows that in the short term, meat-eaters who try to abstain for a month of their own accord experience greater cravings for meat than those who do not abstain."
"Therefore, we should not expect that abstinence from meat will immediately lead to aversion to it, because that still takes some time," he points out.
How much does reducing meat intake actually limit emissions?
A team led by Peter Scarborough, professor of population health at the University of Oxford, published in 2023. environmental impact study of different diets, including a large number of vegans and vegetarians from a dataset of 55.000 people in the UK.
"Quite often researchers just model what vegan and vegetarian diets might be like and make some crazy assumptions, like, 'Oh, yeah, I'm sure vegans eat everything that meat-eaters eat, except instead of sausages they eat broccoli.'"
It was the first analysis to examine the impact of different diets on a range of environmental measures beyond carbon emissions, including land use, water use, water pollution and species extinction.
The study concluded that a vegan diet produces the least carbon emissions.
Only 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from a diet that includes more than 110 grams of meat per day.
Less emissions of plant-based foods was maintained even when air travel and the resources necessary to grow crops were taken into account.
The most intensive vegan diet is still had only 37 percent greenhouse gas emissions that came from eating more than 100 grams of meat per day.
Smaller portions and fewer meat meals
For those who don't follow a vegan or vegetarian diet, simply eating less meat had a significant impact on emissions, Scarborough found.
At the population level, these reductions are significant.
If big meat consumers in the UK were to cut just a portion of their diet, it would be like taking eight million cars off the road, claims Scarborough.
Researchers in Scotland found in 2004 that, across the United Kingdom, the change that made the biggest difference to overall meat consumption was reducing the portion size of meat.
The next most influential measure was fewer meat-eating days, fewer meat consumers (this includes vegans, vegetarians, flexitarians, and people who eat meat in moderation), and, finally, fewer meals containing meat (for example, introducing a vegetarian lunch).
Reducing portion sizes, say the researchers, could be the most impactful campaign for "meat-oriented consumers," who are unlikely to give up meat entirely for one day a week or one month a year.
In addition to reducing portions, the type of meat and animal products eaten also makes a difference.
Some types emit less carbon than others.
Beef has the highest carbon footprint, followed by lamb, because both come from ruminants that belch out potent methane when digesting their food.
Meat from smaller, non-ruminant animals such as chicken, turkey and duck has a much smaller carbon footprint.
Scarborough and his colleagues hope the findings will be used to influence public policy.
He says there is a lack of political will in the UK to introduce a meat reduction policy, which countries such as Denmark have already adopted.
Becker agrees that there is little public support for policies to reduce meat consumption.
The meat paradox is the fact that most people oppose animal abuse but still want to eat factory-farmed meat.
This suggests that people tend to rationalize their meat intake and defend it quite passionately, she says.
"Let's be pragmatic about this."
"It's pretty unrealistic for everyone to switch to a plant-based diet," says Morris.
While the most impactful dietary change is still plant-based, Morris welcomes other initiatives, from "less is better" to cutting out animal products for a while, if it helps people reduce their impact on the planet.
Watch the video: "Less meat to save the planet"
BBC is in Serbian from now on and on YouTube, follow us HERE.
Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram i Viber. If you have a topic suggestion for us, please contact bbcnasrpskom@bbc.co.uk
Bonus video:
