Redefine the Truth?

We’re going to look at each part of Redefine Meat’s ‘environment’ page, which is arguably little more than a one-sided beef bashing sheet regurgitating clichéd soundbites from other vested anti-meat sources. Redefine Meat is part of a movement of companies trying to replace nutritious meat with their ultra-processed product by misinforming individuals, ignoring the major contributors to atmospheric carbon and doing a spectacular job of pretending carbon-negative farming systems are not already in existence.??

Animal Meat

The page begins with a nifty slider that allows you to enter how often and how much ‘animal meat’ you eat. By increasing either the quantity or regularity of meat-eating by clicking or sliding you’ll gradually turn the world’s atmosphere red, implying that you, yes you, are making the world burn. Unless, of course, you swap from beef to their made-in-a-plant-based burger.??

Environment

‘From extreme greenhouse gas emissions to excessive land and water usage, beef production has a significant impact on the environment. At Redefine Meat, we are proud to be working on real ways to change this and make it easier for everyone to enjoy great food without compromise. See three ways in which new-meat can create a more sustainable future.’

‘Extreme greenhouse gas emissions’ - The only gas they can be referring to here is methane. Methane—to be more precise biogenic methane, which we’ll get to later—has a short life span. After about 12 years hanging around in the atmosphere, it breaks down into carbon dioxide and water to be sequestered back into the environment. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel extraction takes hundreds to thousands of years to be sequestered because it’s an additional gas. Fossil fuel carbon is new to the atmosphere following release after aeons locked deep inside the earth. Methane is 28 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere. But—and this is a significant 'but,' one that Redefine Meat has forgotten to mention—biogenic methane is not an additional greenhouse gas like those released during fossil fuel extraction.

Biogenic methane is constantly being cycled through living things and the atmosphere.

Have a look at the Carbon Mooooves illustration below:?

Source: Smiling Tree Farm.?

Biogenic methane begins breaking down into water and carbon dioxide within about 12 years. Once that’s happened, plants store the water and carbon as carbohydrates using photosynthesis. Some of the plants are eaten by cows. The cows store carbon, releasing it and biogenic methane through their exhalations starting the process again. Cow manure regenerates the soil beneath their hooves more effectively than any man-made fertiliser ever has, making the soil nutritious and an excellent carbon sink. When herds stay the same size they’re not adding any extra methane into the atmosphere. In fact, they can be a part of the solution when managed correctly, see the White Oak Pastures chart at the end of this article.???

‘Without compromise’ - This must be a joke. What’s more of a compromise than swapping nutrient-dense beef for the list of ingredients (can we call them that?) below??

Redefine Premium ‘Burger’: ‘Water, plant protein (soy, pea) (15%), refined coconut fat, refined rapeseed oil, flavourings (contains mustard), thickener (methylcellulose), maltodextrin, dehydrated potato flakes, mushroom extract, concentrated caramelised pear juice, raising agent (sodium bicarbonate), salt, raspberry juice, vitamin B3, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, iron, zinc, colour (beetroot red).’

Beef is an excellent source of complete, very high-quality amino acids, making it a top-quality protein source. Soy and pea proteins are ultra-processed and provide a lower-quality amino acid protein. Beef is a rich source of micronutrients including an array of B vitamins and minerals including zinc, iron, potassium, selenium and phosphorus. Eating beef provides these micronutrients and more in bioavailable forms allowing easy assimilation. The synthetic ones in Redefine Meat’s burger are no better or worse than a weak multivitamin-mineral. Without them, their product would be little except poor quality protein and oxidised rapeseed oil—bravo!?

Water Consumption?

‘New-meat production is twenty times more efficient and uses 96% less water (per kilogram) than a beef hamburger. If every family, in each OECD country, replaced one meal per month of traditional meat with Redefine Meat?2, the water saved would be the equivalent to the annual drinking water of China and India, combined. Making this change once a week would save the equivalent of an entire year’s worth of drinking water for the entire global population.’

‘96% less water’ - This is nothing short of scandalous. Water can be categorised into three distinct types: blue, green, and grey. Grey water refers to the volume required to dilute agricultural chemicals. Bluewater represents the observable water bodies, such as rivers, lakes, and other surface water sources, along with aquifers (natural subsurface water reservoirs), which are all depicted in blue on maps. In contrast, green water is the moisture that circulates from vegetation into the atmosphere to fall as rain, snow etc. On average beef production is about 95% green water. Basically, that’s 95% rainfall. To attribute this to water consumption by beef production is nothing short of ridiculous. If you want to know the top 3 thirstiest agricultural products they’re wheat, rice and then cotton which account for more than half of the world’s blue water usage. It would be interesting to see whether Redefine Meat takes their separate ingredients into account when it comes to water consumption or if they’re just adding up their own production’s consumption. Soybeans need between 1300 - 2300 tonnes of water per tonne of soybean. A large fraction of that, depending on where it’s grown, is blue water sucked from aquifers or drained from rivers and lakes. Peas use about half or less water than soybeans. Rapeseed and many of the other ingredients also require water.?

Once you realise the comparison is a deliberately unfair one it reveals their call to swap ‘traditional meat’ for one of their own products as a masterclass in gaslighting masquerading as benevolence.??

Land Use

‘The world is producing four times more meat today than it did 50 years ago. In fact, 60% of the world’s agricultural land is used for beef production. New-meat production requires 98% less land – a significant environmental benefit. In developed countries, if each family replaced one meal of beef with Redefine Meat each week, it would free an area equivalent to 1.5 times the size of Spain, or 13% of the Amazon Rainforest.’

‘60% of the world’s agricultural land is used for beef production’ - But 60% of that agricultural land is not suitable for crops of any kind. Either livestock uses that land, upcycling inedible vegetation into nutrient-dense foods, or it lies empty and provides nothing to sate the world’s hunger.?

?‘New-meat production requires 98% less land’ - How they worked this number out is not made clear, but if their misuse of the water consumption stats is anything to go by, we’d suggest this is not an apples-to-apples comparison.??

Greenhouse Gas Emissions [GHG]

‘Meat production has a significant impact on the climate crisis. Human activities are responsible for almost all GHG increases in the atmosphere since the late 1800s, with beef production being among the most polluting industries. World leaders have committed to reducing GHG emissions by 30% in 2030. The production of one kilogram of Redefine Meat emits the equivalent of 1/9 of the GHG emissions required to produce a kilogram of beef burger. If every family in the OECD countries replaced one meal of beef per week with Redefine Meat, the reduction in GHG emissions would be the equivalent to those obtained by removing 86 million family-sized cars from circulation.’

‘beef production being among the most polluting industries’ - The reference they give for this statement is a paper investigating the efficacy of adding nanoparticles to diesel to enhance combustion and reduce harmful exhaust gases. It has nothing to do with beef production. The truth doesn’t fit so well with their sensationalist fear-mongering.? US data is better than UK data, so we’ll look at that. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), all livestock agriculture in the US accounts for 3.9% of total emissions. Beef accounts for 2% of the US’s total GHG emissions.?

Doing it Right?

Independent study showing a net carbon negative footprint at White Oak Pastures Farm, Bluffton, Georgia. Source.?