The meat issue: how to implement a planetary health diet in society

By Antonia Löchner

 

Introduction

The meat issue is an important topic in the discussion of the climate change. Alone in Germany 763 million animals(1) are consumed yearly and meat production makes up, 70% of greenhouse gas emission of our whole food production(2). And it can directly be linked to up to 9 SDGs. There are many consequences to our desire for animal products anytime and as much as we want. The main 5 problems being 1) Greenhouse gas emission, 2) Water waste, 3) Animal cruelty, 4) Loss of biodiversity and 5) Health impact.

 

The 5 main problems our meat consumption causes

1. Greenhouse Gas emission

It’s estimated that about 18% of global greenhouse emission can be attributed to the lifestock sector. It’s responsible for “one tenth of global emissions of CO2, plus 35–40 per cent of methane emissions and 65 per cent of nitrous oxide. Both methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have a much greater global warming potential, by unit volume, than does CO2.“ Methane is estimated to be 70 times more powerful in heat trapping than Co2, thereby being a great contributor to global warming(3).

Ruminant grazers like cattle, sheep or goats regurgitate methane. The digastric digestive system is able to break down cellulose from grases, and together with bacterial action, methane becomes a byproduct of digestion. Approximately 700 liters of methane are produced by a normal cow daily(3).

But the pathway from the food to the plate is obviously longer than that. It’s composed of direct emission and indirect emission. Direct emission meaning the direct pathway from production to plate, while indirect emission describes the effect that actions like rainforest deforestation for agricultural grounds have.

Most people underestimate the effect that a simple change of diet could have on the overall health of the planet. To give an example:  „Compared to 2009, the average German in 2010 consumed slightly more wheat products (2010: 66.4 kg, 2009: 62.8 kg) and poultry meat (2010: 19.3 kg, 2009: 18.8 kg). The annual average per capita food consumption increased from 667 kg (2009) to 677 kg (2010). This increase may seem very minor but it significantly increased Germany’s need for agricultural land for food production, i.e. by 215,000 ha. As Germany does not have the capacity to increase its domestic agricultural area, the additional land needed must be drawn on in other countries. The 215,000 ha in question are almost equivalent to the territory of the federal state of Saarland. Of this additional acreage, 37,000 ha are located in South America where the associated land use change gives rise to approximately 5.6 million tons of CO2 emissions. The overall quantity of additional indirect GHG emissions resulting from this relatively small change in our eating habits amounts to 40 million tons, which considerably increases the German food carbon footprint, i.e. from 163 to 203 million tons CO2 -equivalents. The per capita Summary 4 food carbon footprint thus increased from 2 to about 2.5 tons CO2- equivalents. In other words, roughly 20 % of our current food carbon footprint is caused by recent changes in food consumption and the associated land use change“(2)

 

It's estimated that the implementation of a planetary health diet, in Germany alone, could prevent up to 14.5% of CO2 emissions which equals 230 billion kilometers of passenger car journeys.(2)

 

2. Water waste

The water footprint of animal products doesn’t only consist of the amount the animals drink. It also includes the amount of water you need for their food (e.g. crops) to grow, cleaning the stables, transportation and co. Also, the age of the animal upon slaughter and the climate conditions it has grown up in are big contributors to that final number. There are significant local differences in water consumption. And since most industrial countries outsource their food production it’s mostly the poor countries that suffer from the water depletion and pollution the meat industry causes. In the US 68% of crops grown are used to feed animals. A food product of animal origin needs 2.5L of water / 1 kcal. In comparison, food from a vegetable origin only needs 0.5L/1kcal(3). Out of these, beef production is one of the biggest water consumers in the meat industry. The production of 1 pound of beef needs 2400 gallons of water while the similar amount of tofu only needs a 10th of the amount(4). It’s estimated that a vegetarian diet would  decrease water consumption by 36% in developed countries and by 15% in developing countries(2).

 

3. Animal cruelty

The definition of factory faming is following “a way of producing meat and other animal products quickly and cheaply by keeping animals in small spaces in buildings and feeding them special types of food“ (Cambridge dictionary). Right below the definition, following sentence is written „Factory farming is often  considered cruel, and consumers need to weigh this up against the benefits of cheap meat and eggs.“ The preservation of factory farming shows that many humans, knowingly or unknowingly, seem to find cruelty towards animals and acceptable tradeoff for money.

Considering that we ourselves are mammals makes this ethically very questionable.

To give an example: A pig only gets 0.75m2 of space in it’s life, has to gain 110kg within 6months via the mast process to reach it’s slaughter weight, and 14% of piglets don’t even reach that age due to the major health problems they have to face. (1)

What most factory farming have in common is that the most basic needs of animals are ignored and their free movement is severely limited. The industry forcibly adapts the animals to the type of husbandry: horns, beaks, curly tails and teeth are shortened or cut off without anesthesia. In addition antibiotics are used in order to keep the animals healthy despite their miserable life conditions.(1)

There are many animal types affected by factory farming, but most severely pigs, cows, chicken, turkey, quail, goose, ducks and fish. Cows and chicken are not only bread for their meat but also for the products they produce.

In Germany alone 45million chicken are used for egg production according to the Albert-Schweitzer Stiftung. Out of these, 5% are living in cages, 65% in free run (“Bodenhaltung”) and 20% in free range (“Freilandhaltung”) and 10% in organic farms. “Cage breeding” was forbidden in Germany in 2010 (BMEL), but with a transit phase until 2025 (2028). Until that exit date no new cage farms would be allowed and the cage size increased from 1 DinA4 sheet (550cm2) to 800cm2 per animal. And still there was a major protest from the farmers, who invested in farms that were now only allowed to persist for 15 years. Not only the change away from cage breeding, but also the practice to not kill male chicks right after birth is taking a very long time for a change in legislation. Over 45mio male chicks are killed every year in Germany by shredding or suffocation. In 2013 the first legal actions were started to prevent this practice, and up to this day there was no definite court verdict against it. It was determined in 2019 that “it’s not acceptable to kill male chicks routinely for business gain”, but no definite dates for a stop of this practice have been established. First, practices such as identifying the sex of the embryo within the egg would have to be further developed. And Germany still considers itself as a global pioneer in that matter. A valid question that could arise is, why those male chicks are not raised for the meat sector of the industry? The answer is simple. Laying hens and broiler chickens are genetically very different.

One’s breed is optimally designed to lay 300 eggs a year, 10 times as many as the original chicken did. The other breed is designed to have a high muscle content and to gain weight fast, the growth rate has quadrupled from the original. In average, they are slaughtered after 28-42 days of life. So simply put: it’s not profitpromising for farmers to raise a breed for a purpose it is not designed for.

Companies have specialized to breed the genetically perfect animals for their respective purpose, making a population lacking any genetical diversity very vulnerable. A trial showed, that even if the animals were allowed to live longer, the genetically modified bodies could not maintain life. While muscle groups keep growing and growing the organ system and skeletal system stay back, leading to diseases such as early heart failure and ascites syndrome. (5) So it continues.

 

4. Loss of biodiversity

When looking to calculate the carbon footprint of meat production the indirect emission is often forgotten. The direct emission, including the pathway from production to plate, only covers a part of the real number.

In order to make space for the increasing need of agricultural grounds, rainforests are deforested among other destruction of nature. To cover German meat consumption, 19mio hektar of agricultural land are needed for production which equals 2300m2/person and exceeds German capacity(2), wherefore outsourcing to our countries is taking place in order to meet German demands.

This inevitable leads to a loss of diversity found in forests, making monocultures

susceptible to disease and destroys the natural habitat of animals and insects.

 

5. Health impact

a. Disease spread

The recent corona pandemic is a powerful reminder that diseases of humans and animals are very closely entangled. Up to this point it’s still believed that bats are the most likely source of the SARS-Cov-2 virus(6) which still paralyzes the world although it has been over a year since the first human case.

The editors of “The meat crisis” book ,D’Silva and Webster, have summed up the health impact of common animal practices(3). A look back into history reveals that indeed many cases of pandemic outbreaks of various diseases are connected to an animal source.

Some authors even suggest that the major outbreaks of diseases in human population started at the same time humans started to domesticate animals. Powerful examples backing that claim are smallpox, whopping cough and influenza who all most likely had an animal origin. Some more recent virus with a likely zoonotic transmission route is ebola with a terrifying high death rate of 50%(7).

Furthermore, the bird flu (H5N1) and swine flu (H1N1), as the name suggests, originated in said animals and were known to infect humans as well, luckily only in small numbers. Nevertheless, the outbreaks of above plaques have caused a mass slaughter of all animals standing in contact or even only proximity of location to an infected individual. One very feared scenario is the combination of those two above mentioned virus. H5N1’s death toll of 60% in humans(8) combined with the human transmission rate of H1N1 could indeed pose a serious threat. Yet still none of the farming practices are altered to ensure a less risky environment.

It has been proven that factory farming presents a very stressful environment for animals, who are deprived of almost every natural behaviour except eating. Stress is a known suppressor of immune systems which makes the animal’s vulnerability to infection no surprise. The amounts of ammonia evaporating from the animals excrements attack their lungs and a study even showed that the simple act of providing the animals with straw bedding would significantly decrease their stress levels. The lack of fresh air and sunlight, and the simple overcrowding pose other aggravating factors. Another powerful example of the factory farming practices being a major risk factor for disease spread is the transmission of BSE also known as mad cow disease, which has it’s likely origin in the practice of re-fed slaughter waste to animals. In the case of BSE the slaughter waste of sheep fed to cow in assumed to be the origin. And again it didn’t take long for that disease to be transferred to humans. (3)

 

b. Antiobiotics resistencies

The discovery of antibiotics in 1928 changed the world. Finally, the humanity had something to actively fight disease. But now a new challenge has arisen. The last new class of antibiotic has been brought to the market in 1987(9), despite rising resistances all over the world, because the pharma industry hasn’t deemed it a profit-promising investment. The problem is not only the lack of development of new antibiotics or the too free use of antibiotics in humans, but also the large scale antibiotic use in factory farming. Over 70% of antibiotics used in the US are for lifestock, not only to prevent disease but also to enhance growth(3). A practice that has been just recently limited.

 

c. Nutritional risk

The nutritional risk of red meat is a well researched topic. Excessive consumption of red meat is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and thereby mortality. A ten year follow up study comparing high and low intake of red meat in over half a million Americans between 50-71 years old, found that males have a 31% increased risk and females a 36% increased risk in overall mortality evident in death from Cardiovascular diseases and cancer. (Sinha et al, 2009). Meat from farm factory animals contains high levels of saturated fat due to feeding practices and low activity levels of animals. High levels of cholesterol and saturated fat consumption are known risk cardiovascular risk factors.

Apart from the increased risk for Cardiovascular pathology, red meat consumption is estimated to cause „a 30 per cent increase in risk of colorectal cancer for every 100 gm of red meat consumed per day“ (WCRF/AICR, 2007).

Other cancer types could not be definitely linked to red meat consumption yet.(3)

 

The planetary health diet

The EAT-Lancet Commission, consisting of 37 experts from 16 countries, came together in 2019 to work out a plan for a sustainable and healthy nutrition. Facing the prognosis of 10 billion people living on this earth by 2050, a plan of action needed to be developed, in order to ensure the survival of such a large group of people without destroying the planet in consequence(10).

The numerous goals of the nutritional reform are far-reaching. To reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, to stop the expansion of arable land, to combat water scarcity, to conserve biodiversity and to battle starvation and diseases of civilization(11).

They came to the conclusion that the consumption of fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes needs to be doubled while the consumption of red meat and sugar should be halved to meet nutritional requirements within planetary boundaries(11).

According to their calculations of 2500kcal/d per person, only 13g egg, 28g fish and 14g meat would be recommended per day(11).

All those numbers are to be understood as guidelines and not rules. There are massive regional differences of consumption which would take a lot of time to change.

The commission introduced 5 strategies to support the global change in nutrition (10,

12).

1. Promote healthy eating by education, availability and affordability for everyone and better governmental regulations.
2. Quality and diversity in agriculture instead of quantity  
3. Sustainable intensified agriculture, by optimal adoption to local weather and ground conditions
4. Protection of land and water to preserve natural ecosystems
5. Halving food waste

If all governments would work together in order to achieve this global change of nutrition, the calculations suggest a survival of both humanity and nature.

 

Decision making

Every change in perspective starts with knowledge and motivation. Firstly, the consumer needs to be made aware of the impact his individual consumption of meat has.

Secondly a diet lower in animal products has to become attractive. Health benefits have to be underlined and the person has to feel good about themselves doing something that protects the environment. Why does a plastic shark in movies makes people fear the ocean, but smokers don’t react to the terrifying pictures on cigarette packages? Although a shark attack is statistically speaking far less likely than dying from consequences of smoking?

Prejudices like “I won’t get enough protein” have to addressed and refuted. Role models have to established. Only one famous person declaring themselves to a vegetarian lifestyle can have a huge impact. That’s why influencers are very well paid by the industry whose products the promote.

The problem is also that it has been a common believe for generations that animal products are essential to maintain our health. A 1980 study showed that out of 200 women that were asked what the family needs to eat healthy, only 5 woman considered it not to be an essential part of the daily nutrition. In fact it was mentioned more than any other item(13). As a Times editorial of 1936 put it: ‘Milk makes you sleep o’nights, gives you a milky complexion, makes muscle, gives you a healthy old age, and makes the toddler king of the castle. What more can men and women want?’ (3).

One of the main arguments pro animal products is their protein content. Protein, coming from the Greek word proteios, which means “primary” is something many fitness people obsess with. It became a synonym for a healthy lifestyle, fitness and attractiveness. Every one argues about the amount of carbs or fat a healthy diet is allowed to contain, but a high protein content is rarely critisized. The British government estimated that and average person requires 36g (females) / 44g (males) of protein per day, but usually twice as much is consumed in the western culture(3), mostly in the form of animal products. Decreasing our meat intake would not only protect our own health but could also allow a slight increase in meat consumption in poor countries, a specially in children and pregnant woman who often suffer from malnutrition and deficiencies.

The meat replacement products have reached similar scores in protein content as meat without the negative consequences for the planet. Even the highest impact vegetarian replacement product has a lower emission than the lowest impact meat product(14).

And they are considered even healthier than meat(15).

 

What influences our decision making

How do we make decisions and what motivates us? This question is a long researched topic.

Starting with the evolution. To ensure optimal survival it has proven beneficial to repeat actions with a good outcome (e.g. food) and to cease actions with a bad outcome (e.g. being eaten)(16). Therefore, we learned to adopt out behaviour to constantly changing conditions. A simple case of trial and error. The process of drawing conclusion thus learning from negative and positive experience is called operant conditioning or instrumental learning. Positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. Rescorla and Wagner (17) have set up the theory „that “surprise”, that is, a difference between expected and actually received reward, is a driving force behind learning.“(16) Human decision making includes many future scenarios, assessment of gains and costs and possible outcomes both short- and longterm. All thriving to maximize the reward.

Motivation typically describes „the willingness to invest resources (such as time or effort) in order to receive a reward or to avoid a punisher“(16). A process that has proven to be highly dopamine dependent. In forebrain dopamine depletion animals will cease to actively search for food, eventually starving to death, but will eat it if it’s places right in front of them (18).Therefore, Berridge and Robinson proposed a distinction „between “liking” (i.e., the experience of pleasure) and “wanting” (i.e., the motivation to obtain it) of a reward“(16) (19)

Motivation is based on the outcome that we are weighing up before every action, determined by the equation of : subjective reward – subjective costs. But every person has a subjective perspective on the importance of a certain reward or a certain cost. An easy example is the fact that a meal taste better when you are hungry, because your subjective reward is increased by your internal signals. Scientists have also discovered the process of temporal / probability discounting, meaning that the subjective value of things is reduced with time and probability. Adding two new factors to the equation. That’s why drug addicts, although usually aware of the longterm health consequences, evaluate the short term fix as more desirable. (16)

 

Individual level

Based on the positive or negative outcome theory of learning, the only way to change our behaviour are direct negative or positive consequences to our actions that we personally have to experience. Only the recent natural catastrophes and the courage of some brave individuals such as Greta Thunberg has given the climate change discussion new wind. The reports and numbers of the human caused climate change problem existed well before that. Just no one acted accordingly since generally humans are naturally more interested in the short-come outcome of our actions, than the unpredictable longterm outcomes which lie far in the future. To factors previously discussed that decrease motivation. That’s why the plastic shark from the movie stirs our fear, because it would mean imminent death being eaten by a shark in the ocean.

The statistical proven correlation between smoking and a high mortality doesn’t bother us too much since it’s far in the future and everyone assumes to be the unaffected exception. Although statistically speaking it’s far more likely to die from the longterm effects of smoking than from a shark bite. Therefore, the theoretical numbers of the greenhouse gas emission or water waste of the meat industry don’t bother people too much as long as they don’t have to experience the effects it right now. Why would the suffering of animals they have never seen make them not have their beloved steak? Many people decide to stay oblivious. If one is not exactly aware of what is happening, how can one be holding any responsibility? Because one didn’t know, right?

PETA, a known animal-rights organization, often confronts people with shocking pictures, videos and human models. And are harshly criticized for it. Despite just showing the truth. For many people the rearrangement of their every-day nutrition would represent a lot of effort. And for what immediate benefits? Thus, animal replacement products have to become cheaper than meat or at least equally cheap and the health and planet benefits have to be heavily promoted on the package to provide this incentive. Then, everyone could afford them and feel like a modern-day hero at the same time.

In addition to that, an educational approach should already start in school. Children have an innate feeling of what is right and wrong. So, if they were confronted with all the facts and maybe even some ugly truths, would they maybe shape a future generation that takes up responsibility?

 

Governmental level

The government represents the people. They are elected, hence the majority of people want what they advertise in their election campaign. Yet still a common excuse of people is, that their personal change in behaviour would not make the difference, since the government would have to take big action in order for it to matter.

The government is, although it shouldn’t be, highly dependent on the industry. In America, it is argued that several deals are negotiated even before election, to finance the election campaign. And a healthy industry means workplaces. Which in turn is favourable for the individual.

One can see without being an expert, that there is a very sensitive balance between the individual-the industry and the government. All interests have to be met somewhere on common ground.

And yet this pandemic showed us a very new side of the governmental power. Where before, certain decisions where excused with a conflict of interest, nothing of this mattered when it came to the global lockdowns during corona. Suddenly, at least in Germany, the interest of the industry or the individual didn’t matter as much as a human life. Would we only esteem the life of animals half as high.

Several, but not enough, actions of governments towards a meat reduced diet have been undertaken over the years. Some examples are Donderdag: Veggie Day started in a Belgian city in 2009 with the aim to combat obesity, global warming and animal cruelty or the carbon and methane tax New Zealand, Estonia and the US, legislation has proposed for the cattle industry. But unfortunately many of those governmental initiatives met their match in trials vs. the meat industry.

 

Industrial level

Rügenwalder Mühle is a huge german sausage company, in family hand since 1834. Naturally they have made most of their fortune by selling animal products. This year they made a higher annual sales with their veggie alternatives than with their actual meat products(20). Rügenwalder Mühle recognized the early trend towards a meat reduced lifestyle and is now harvesting the profits. A powerful example, that providing vegetarian alternatives is a profiting business.

Another great example was made by a danish supermarket chain(21) who offered their customers an estimate of the CO2 footprint of their groceries to increase awareness of food type impact. The same amount of vegetables for example has 2CO2 equivalents while beef has 27 and lamb has 39(2).

Many Start-Ups are trying to find meat alternatives. A new focus has evolved in using insects as replacement (22), and idea both healthier and more sustainable.

Cleantech-Startup MeaTec is 3D printing „real meat“ without any animal cruelty and an impressively low impact on nature. While 1kg of real meat in average needs 16.000L or water, 14 kg of Co2 emission and 160m2 , their product will only need 2500L water, 3kg of CO2 emission and 1.6m2. It is listed in the NASDAQ.(23)

So it seems the market for alternatives to meat is evolving, profiting and growing

rapidly.

 

Conclusion

Every movement starts with an individual. So it’s on us to change our habits for the greater good. The statistics have shown that even small alterations in consumption patterns can have a great impact. And at least in Germany every citizen has a vote, to elect a government that will achieve the necessary change. Most surveys already show that 30-50% of people are interested in cutting down on meat (Hopkins university).

And Germany just published ,that the meat consumption nationally has declined to a number, last recorded in 1989(24). But to create a reasonable, whole hearted change the governments need to take action. Regulations have to be implemented, to protect water resources, maintain the diversity of our ecosystem, to stop animal cruelty and to decrease the carbon footprint.

Sustainable farming should be subsidized and meat free alternatives should be promoted. There should be an emphasize on making a healthy diet affordable for everyone, while food that is known to be harmful to the planet and human health should be heavily taxed and regulated.

Educational programs should be started already in the school, to make even young children aware, what is at stake if we were to continue as we did. And tasty vegetarian food options should be promoted both in schools or workplaces.

Both us individuals and the government have to make it attractive for the industry to

develop planet-friendly alternatives. And also demand transparency from them.

 

1. Stiftung AS. Massentierhaltung. p. https://albert-schweitzerstiftung.

de/massentierhaltung.

2. WWF. Climate change on your plate. p. https://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fmwwf/

Publikationen-PDF/Climate_change_on_your_plate.pdf.

3. Joyce D'Silva JW. The Meat Crisis Developing more Sustainable and Ethical

Production and Consumption: Routledge; 2017.

4. PETA. Meat and environment. p. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-forfood/

meat-environment/.

5. Mitwelt ASS-fu. Legehennen. 2018.

6. Latinne A, Hu B, Olival KJ, Zhu G, Zhang L, Li H, et al. Origin and cross-species

transmission of bat coronaviruses in China. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):4235.

7. WHO. Ebola. p. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ebola-virusdisease.

8. WHO. H5N1. p.

https://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/avian_influenza/h5n1_research/fa

qs/en/#:~:text=Human%20cases%of%H5N1%avian,mortality%rate%is%about%2060%25.

9. React. Few antibiotics under development. p.

https://www.reactgroup.org/toolbox/understand/how-did-we-end-up-here/few-antibioticsunder-

development/

10. BDfE. Planetary Health Diet : Speiseplan fur eine gesunde und nachhaltige

Ernahrung. 2020.

11. ottonova. The planetary health diet: Der Klimafreundliche Ernahrungsplan. 2020.

12. Centre SR. The planetary health diet. 2019. p.

https://stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2019-01-17-the-planetary-healthdiet.

html.

13. Charles N, Kerr M. Eating Properly, the Family and State Benefit. Sociology.

1986;20(3):412-29.

14. BBC. Climate change food calculator: What's your diet's carbon footprint? 2019. p.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46459714.

15. Gesundheit Zf. Fleischersatz ist gesunder als Fleisch. 2021. p. https://www.zentrumder-

gesundheit.de/ernaehrung/lebensmittel/fleischersatz/fleischersatz-gesund.

16. Verharen JPH, Adan RAH, Vanderschuren LJMJ. How Reward and Aversion Shape

Motivation and Decision Making: A Computational Account. The Neuroscientist.

2020;26(1):87-99.

17. Rescorla RAaWA. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness

of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and

Theory. 1972;Vol. 2.

18. Salamone JD, Correa M. The mysterious motivational functions of mesolimbic

dopamine. Neuron. 2012;76(3):470-85.

19. Berridge KC, Robinson TE. What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact,

reward learning, or incentive salience? Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1998;28(3):309-69.

20. online Ta. Rugenwalder Muhle verkauft erstmals mehr Fleischersatz als klassische

Wurst. 2020. p. https://www.topagrar.com/markt/news/ruegenwalder-verkauft-erstmalsmehr-

fleischersatz-als-klassische-wurst-12338447.html.

21. Washingtonpost. Checking in on the climate as you check out. p.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2020/09/30/carbon-footprintsupermarkets/.

22. Kleis C. Insects as meat substitute. 2017. p.

https://www.goethe.de/en/kul/mol/21051740.html.

23. Jedrischik M. Zellkultiviertes Fleisch aus dem 3D-Drucker: Wie MeaTech die saubere

Fleischrevolution ermoglichen will. 2021. p. https://www.cleanthinking.de/zellkultiviertesfleisch-

aus-dem-3d-drucker-wie-meatech-die-saubere-fleischrevolution-ermoeglichen-will/.

24. BLE. 57,3 Kilogramm Fleisch pro Person: Verzehr sinkt weiter. p.

https://www.ble.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/210322_Fleisch.html