The Climate Impacts of Pasture Farming - Eating Better

Summary Report

Eating Better Roundtable:

The Climate Impacts of Pasture Farming

In collaboration with the Food Climate Research Network Held 27 November 2017


Eating Better Roundtable

Summary

Key points:

The purpose of the roundtable was to discuss the findings of the Food Climate Research Network’s Grazed and Confused1 report with Tara Garnett, its lead author, together with issues that the research raises. Twenty-seven participants took part (see participants list) including representatives of Eating Better alliance organisations and other stakeholders including those with experience in pasture-fed livestock farming.

• Tara and FCRN were acknowledged for providing a valuable analysis that shines a light on the science and complexities of livestock, pasture farming and climate change. The report recognises that climate change is one of a number of other important factors, but the aim of this research was to address this specific issue in depth so it can be used to inform wider considerations. FCRN are planning follow up work that will examine the role of livestock in relation to biodiversity, land use and land use change.

The report’s publication had generated some lively debate and provided an important topic for wider discussion. In particular we wanted to bring people together to consider the implications of this research for civil society messaging toward ‘less and better’ meat & dairy, and farming in pasture based livestock systems, as well as the implications for policy and research at this time when Brexit, CAP reform, climate negotiations and the forthcoming UK Agriculture Bill potentially offer opportunities to shift livestock production and consumption onto more sustainable pathways.

• Consuming less meat and dairy needs to be the fundamental message: A strong conclusion of the report and the discussion is that if we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, then we need to reduce overall consumption of animal products, by at least half. From a GHG emission perspective we need to eat less of all types of meat – ruminants (beef and lamb) and monogastrics (pork and chicken) – and it is not enough simply to swap between different types of meat, e.g. from beef to chicken. Maintaining current consumption patterns, and the upward trend in consumption of animal products, is catastrophic for land-use change and deforestation, and not mitigated by simply switching at the same level of consumption to e.g. grass-fed from intensive systems. Hence, while promoting ‘better’ meat and dairy is desirable, it only makes sense in the context of consuming considerably ‘less’.

This was the first roundtable of Eating Better’s new programme of work to bring people together to address tricky or challenging issues. We sought to hear different perspectives, to develop knowledge and shared understanding and navigate ways through the complexities. We wish to thank Tara Garnett from the Food Climate Research Network (FCRN) for presenting the research and its findings, Kath Dalmeny from Sustain for her excellent chairing and the participants for the expertise and insights that they brought to the open and positive discussions.

• Defining ‘better’: While the ‘less’ message is increasingly accepted and recognised as an essential message to address climate change, there is often difficulty in defining ‘better’, to ensure that any livestock products that are consumed are those that deliver on other objectives. These include, for example, animal welfare, nutrition, biodiversity, ceasing prophylactic use of farm antibiotics, and promoting farmers’ livelihoods. These preferences can be expressed through choosing higher welfare, free range, pasture-fed or organic products.

This report provides a summary of the presentation and discussions, which were held under the Chatham House rule, in that contributions are not attributable to individuals, nor to organisations. While there was much agreement and common ground among participants, the conclusions do not necessarily fully reflect the views of all the organisations that took part.

Next steps

• It is important to maintain soil carbon stores and where possible build them via sequestration. While pasture-fed livestock can offer environmental benefits, in aggregate grazing ruminants emit more GHGs than they can potentially sequester. It is desirable to build soil carbon, where this is possible and where it is in line with other environmental goals. The priorities to maintain and build soil carbon include halting deforestation; halting further soil carbon losses by no more conversion of natural land to agriculture; no more pasture conversion to arable, while farming in ways that maintain soil carbon. Solutions need to be appropriate for local conditions such as climate, geography and soils.

Our intention is that the outcomes of the workshop will help inform organisations and provide a useful contribution to current policy thinking on how to shift livestock production and consumption onto more sustainable pathways. Eating Better will use the outputs from the roundtable to inform our future work, to refine our messaging to policy makers, businesses and the public on less and better; and to consider how to engage other stakeholders in these discussions including policy makers and farmers.

• An important question is: what is the ‘least bad’ way of using land? We could do other things than producing meat and dairy with grazing land that might be better for carbon sequestration and biodiversity, such as woodland creation. We need to open our minds to alternatives that are appropriate to the local conditions. Getting land and land use right is at least as important as addressing GHGs.

1 Tara Garnett, Cécile Godde et al, Grazed & Confused? Ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question – and what it all means for greenhouse gas emissions, Food Climate Research Network, Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, 2017.

2



Contents Summary of Tara Garnett’s Presentation: Grazed and confused?

Eating Better is a charitable alliance of over 50 civil society organisations working to build consensus and develop collaborative practical approaches to engage policy makers, food businesses and civil society to catalyse shifts towards healthy and sustainable eating patterns. Eating Better encourages a culture where we place greater value on the food we eat, the animals that provide it and the people who produce it.

4

Discussion 6 General points

6

Policy 6

www.eating-better.org

Messaging 7

Registered charity number 1175669

Research 8

We are grateful for funding from the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation.

Conclusion 9 Participants 10

Contact Eating Better, The Grayston Centre 28 Charles Square, London N1 6HT Eating Better Roundtable events are designed to bring organisations together to address tricky or challenging issues and to develop knowledge and shared understanding to navigate ways forward.

[email protected] Twitter: @eating_better Keep in touch with our news, sign up to our monthly newsletter.

Copies of this report can be downloaded here.

3



Summary of Tara Garnett’s Presentation: Grazed and confused?

Can grassfed ruminants sequester more GHGs than they emit? Grassfed cattle contribute approx 20% of total GHG emissions from all livestock (FAO). A sequestration standard is difficult to determine as there are many local variables that determine the extent to which carbon converts into more stable forms in the soil eg lower stocking densities are more likely to have the potential for net sequestration, if conditions favour a high sequestration rate. Importantly, soil stops sequestering carbon after awhile as it reaches an equilibrium. Not all ways of sequestering carbon involve an animal, e.g. afforestation, rewilding. In aggregate however grazing ruminants emit more than they can potentially sequester. At best and in aggregate their sequestration offsets only between 20-60% of their emissions. In other words they are net emitters.

Tara Garnett runs the Food Climate Research Network (FCRN) based at the University of Oxford and is one of the lead authors of Grazed and Confused? Her full presentation can be downloaded here and the report, Grazed and Confused? accessed here. The research: Grazed and Confused? was a two year piece of work involving researchers and universities from different countries. It is a global study, which has benefits and drawbacks. Its purpose was to understand the basis for claims – some extravagant – about the role of grass-fed ruminants to help solve climate change by sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. The focus was climate change in order to address this complex issue in depth to inform wider considerations. FCRN will follow up with work examining the role of livestock in relation to biodiversity, land use and land use change.

The Allan Savory estimates of global sequestration potential of grazing are not peer reviewed and claim much higher levels of global sequestration potential than other peer reviewed research. On current trajectories, even assuming sequestration potential, livestock will take virtually all GHG allowance by 2050. Therefore a strong conclusion of the report (and others) is that we need to reduce global production and consumption of animal products.

The research question was: What is the role of grazing ruminants in the net GHG balance? It addresses three areas of controversy: • The balance of GHG emissions v removals: do grass-fed animals sequester more than they emit?

Methane and nitrous oxide: Methane does matter. While carbon dioxide is permanent and has a cumulative effect, methane, which is present in smaller quantities, is much more potent though shorter lived. A constant rate of methane emissions will lead to a plateau compared to continuing accumulations of carbon dioxide. This has led to arguments that reducing methane is not as important as reducing carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, and we shouldn’t worry so much about ruminants, particularly if numbers don’t increase. But in answer, Tara was clear, that while carbon dioxide is the main contributor to the problems we face, we have to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, and as carbon budgets get smaller, the imperative to reduce methane will become increasingly important. Reducing methane by half from livestock would make more emissions space available. It is essential we start now, as this will involve behaviour change, which we know takes time. But it is also essential this be coupled with reducing fossil fuel use, which is also a source of methane emissions eg from coal mines.

• Controversies over other GHGs: is methane really a problem? What about nitrogen and nitrous oxide? • Landuse change: Isn’t soy and the monogastric sector the real problem? Contrary to some reporting, the report does not compare grassfed v intensive production. Definitions: Grass-fed and grasslands are hard to define and can include ‘improved’ pasture, production systems that include supplementary feeding eg grains, and feed patterns that change over the life course of an animal. There are no official government-mandated certifications and ‘private’ certifications vary in stringency. There is huge variation and diversity of grasslands globally so it is difficult to generalise. Even the amount of grassland globally is uncertain with estimates ranging from 20-40% of earth’s surface, making it difficult to estimate global sequestration potential. Many grasslands were once forests, historically or more recently.

Grass needs nitrogen to grow so sequestration potential is limited by nitrogen availability. But all nitrogen sources (fertilisers, legumes, manure) lead to nitrous oxide emissions (another powerful GHG). In a land-limited world there isn’t enough manure to meet our fertiliser needs and carry on consuming the way we do.

Globally grazing-only ruminants contribute a very small percentage (1%) of dietary protein (we get most of our protein from plants) although they have high localised importance eg pastoralists in low income countries. Grasslands as a whole provide more than this since they are a feed source in mixed crop-livestock systems too, in addition to crop residues and concentrate feed supplements. Grasslands can have alternative uses to livestock production eg arable, nature conservation, bioenergy. There are different options to consider and all have advantages and disadvantages.

4



The land use question: Isn’t soy and the monograstic sector the real problem? Land use change leads to loss of CO2. Livestock have driven land use change from forests directly (for grazing) and indirectly (for animal feed grains and soy) and is a major cause of deforestation in South America. The threats are changing and cereal production/soy (for monogastric intensive pig, poultry and dairy production) is increasingly driving land use change but grazing ruminants remain a problem. Further shifts towards intensification of grazing by ‘improving’ pasture with fertiliser use, reduces biodiversity of grassland and its sequestration potential. Tara made clear the report highlights that reduction in livestock production and consumption needs to include both ruminants and monogastrics.

Some conclusions: current trends in meat & dairy demand (all kinds, all systems) are not sustainable. We need to cut back on animal consumption of all kinds, whatever the species. Maintaining current consumption patterns while switching to grass-fed from intensive systems would be catastrophic for land-use change and deforestation. Hence it is impossible to talk about ‘better’ without talking about ‘less’. While many in the grass fed movement accept the need for overall reductions in livestock consumption this is not true of all stakeholders and that is a concern. Intensive production generates its own problems and is not a solution. The report does not promote industrial livestock farming. Livestock on leftovers’ (requiring reduced consumption) might be an option, but with trade-offs and GHG emissions would still be high. All options and their merits and demerits need to be considered and analysed without bias. High consumers need to cut back on meat – of all types – and dairy products. The future is uncertain: but it is also what we make of it. There are swings and roundabouts – but increasing demand for both monogastrics and ruminants is problematic. The priorities are to halt deforestation; halt further soil carbon losses by no more conversion of natural land to agriculture; no more pasture conversion to arable and farming in ways that maintain soil carbon. It is desirable to build soil carbon, where this is possible and where it is in line with other environmental goals. The question that needs to be asked is: What is the ‘least bad’ way of using land? Getting land use and biodiversity enhancement right are also of paramount importance with GHGs being one of the factors to be taken into account in landuse decisions. Developing understanding requires exploration of lots of counterfactuals and a genuinely open mind.

Livestock on leftovers scenario: the research explored this scenario and asked how much meat and dairy would we get to eat, if we limited our consumption of livestock products by confining production to land unsuited to cropping, plus using by-products (agricultural residues) and food waste for feed? Three studies that considered this question demonstrate the possibility of getting useful, but modest, amounts (about 21g animal protein per day). In a high consuming country such as the UK we would need to reduce consumption from present levels by more than half. It is important to point out that grasslands aren’t ‘leftovers’ – there are often alternative possible uses with environmental and other costs and benefits – that need to be considered.

5



Discussion

Points raised have been grouped into more general points or under the themes of policy, messaging and research.

This analysis was challenged by those who pointed out that a range of economic factors are at play, driving these long-term trends in production and consumption. The economic downturn since 2008, and reduction in consumer spending power, has led to a rise of low cost goods, not just in food. These trends are not driven by people saying: ‘we want to reduce our meat consumption’. Most people want to maintain their consumption and therefore choose cheaper options, which are contributing to the drive towards production intensification. For example driving down of commodity prices for beef and lamb has led to most farmers making a loss, encouraging them to produce more intensively. Also we mustn’t forget the price squeeze of farmers in the supply chain by retailers.

General points Setting the scene for the discussions. The meeting was reminded of the distinction to be made between Tara’s role to present the evidence and the role of others to make decisions on what to do with that evidence. Some of the tensions towards the issue can be explained by the different ways there are of seeing the data analysis. Some want definitions and others want rules of thumb; some want reductionism and to drill down into specifics while others want the bigger picture and generalisations on which to make decisions or provide advice. Some want to make claims and want the rigour of science to support these; some want to focus on the UK and this is an international question. That’s not to say there is dichotomy between perspectives, rather that the analysis can lead to dichotomies.

Action is urgent: The need to address the climate change threat, as well as other challenges to planetary boundaries, is urgent. Actions to address these, including reductions in meat and dairy consumption, need to be a priority.

Policy

Challenge of aligning global problems to local solutions. We are facing a global problem, but there was general agreement that it requires local solutions that fit different climates, geography, cultures etc. It was also noted that we live in an economically global world and if the home market is reduced, farmers will seek to produce for export, to drive up demand, or production will shift elsewhere. We need to remember that the system is very leaky and changes in consumption in one country, such as the UK, might not decrease production of meat overall.

The context. Brexit provides an opportunity for reshaping food and agriculture policy. The Agriculture Bill white paper to be published in the spring of 2018 will set out the framework for decision making for what kind of farming we invest in, in the coming years. Eating Better’s policy recommendations (agreed in consultation with its alliance organisations) set out 10 recommendations for policies to support better UK meat and dairy production post-Brexit (see here). In the context of shifting towards healthy and sustainable eating patterns – with less and better meat and dairy consumption – the recommendations include, the need to protect high quality, permanent grassland and carbon-rich soils, to provide economic support for sustainable livestock production, for there to be clear and honest labelling, and sufficient transition funding for innovation, research and training. Eating Better recognises that common messaging can be more powerful in influencing policy makers, as can identifying and showcasing better practices in the real world.

Where does organic fit in? Tara clarified that a comparison of organic with other systems wasn’t part of the research behind the report. It is complex, though she highlighted a new paper (see here) addressing the question of whether organic could feed the world. This shows it is possible, but only if animal product consumption is drastically reduced which is in line with the analysis of Grazed and Confused? What is driving shifts to intensification? Citing the shift in consumption away from ruminant meat (beef and lamb) to monogastric meat (pork and chicken) over recent decades, the fear was expressed that a message to ‘eat less meat’ (and particularly to ‘eat less red meat’) will continue to destroy the livelihoods of small scale and pasture-based farmers trying to farm in more sustainable ways and will lead to increased intensive farming practices.

Ensuring no unintended consequences. Policy measures need to develop an overarching integrated framework, so as to ensure improving one aspect (e.g. addressing climate change) is not detrimental to another (e.g. animal welfare, biodiversity in other countries). Realigning subsidies. Better food production should receive more subsidies and incentives; this is not the case now. The subsidy system should support sustainable livestock produced to high environmental and animal welfare standards.

6



Getting political buy-in. The challenge of getting political buy-in was noted in the context of the lack of conversation about changing diets and consumption in Bonn at COP23 and the UK Government’s Clean Growth Strategy. While civil society organisations globally were seeking to influence this (there is for example a group at John Hopkins University) it was considered that solutions lie in pushing our own countries to include this in their country commitments.

Alternative land use scenarios. It was suggested that as 75% of farmland is under grass in the UK, if we don’t conserve this by producing meat and milk we’re wasting this resource. If production is reduced but not consumption, we could end up importing more with potentially greater environmental impact. However the point was also made that grassland is not just for growing meat on. We could do other things on that land that might be better for carbon sequestration and biodiversity, such as woodland restoration. We need to open our minds to alternatives that are appropriate to the local conditions.

Engaging farmers. No matter the policy decisions that are made, it will take farmers 5 to 10 years to adopt new practices, as farming practice lags behind the science. It is important to have practical examples of systems that work in practice to change and influence policy and practices. There are many ways to reduce carbon on farm, and a huge range between those achieving savings and those not. We need to quantify the benefits and learn from farmers and demonstrate practical examples to other farmers.

Messaging Less needs to be the fundamental message. The take home message is that from a GHG emission perspective we need to eat less of all types of meat, and we will not meet the desired GHG reductions simply by swapping from one kind of meat to another, e.g. beef to chicken. ‘Less’ should be the framing condition for messaging, whether to policy makers or the public. This was also a message of the Grazed and Confused? report. It was suggested this could be best communicated by a ‘More plants, less meat’ message. The question was also raised about how much is less and how to communicate what this entails. It was suggested there was no scientific basis for limiting this to a ‘one meat free day a week’ message and this wasn’t enough as research points to reductions of at least half to reach climate targets. One caveat to the ‘less’ message was that this applies to high consuming individuals and countries, and may not be appropriate in parts of the world where people consume very low levels and whose nutrition is compromised.

Changing Defra’s focus. Policy at the moment isn’t looking at these big problems. Defra has been focusing on how can we produce more, export more and persuade people to consume more. There needs to be a shift away from this way of thinking. The forthcoming Agriculture Bill, and the UK’s shift away from the Common Agricultural Policy and farm payment system may provide opportunities to address this. Introducing incentives and taxes. We should introduce incentives through agricultural support to adopt practices that are proven to improve carbon sequestration and retention. There was discussion on different approaches to fiscal incentives. A carbon tax could have perverse outcomes, for example it might have the potential to favour animal products such as intensively produced chicken. A meat tax could also be problematic. VAT on meat products was also proposed as a means to favour small farms as VAT doesn’t apply to small businesses. Another suggestion was a proposal for a relatively small tax on nitrogen fertilisers to address the significant negative external costs to society and the environment – by encouraging more sparing use or replacement with investment in natural soil fertility through rotations and legumes. Money collected through a nitrogen (fertiliser) tax could be used to subsidise schemes for more sustainable practices for carbon-rich soils, e.g. green manures, grassland in rotation, deeper rooted grasses, better use of trees and hedgerows. It was pointed out that it was easier to tax inputs than outcomes – although this doesn’t necessarily lead to the desired outcomes. It was recognised that the subject of fiscal incentives and taxes is complex and worthy of further consideration, analysis and research.

How do we define ‘better’ and communicate this? While the ‘less’ message is increasingly accepted, there are still challenges in defining ‘better’, but it was helpful to note that this is because ‘better’ is about deciding how we want things to be. It was noted there was interest from food businesses to implement the ‘less and better’ message but given the degree of complexity and nuance, are there principles to help them implement this in practice? While ‘less’ is the fundamental principle, it was recognised that there are a range of issues to consider in choosing ‘better’ for the meat and dairy that is eaten, including animal welfare and methods of production, which could be a matter of choice, for example choosing higher welfare, free range, pasture fed or organic. It would be helpful to be able to demonstrate what ‘less and better’ means in practice for people and businesses. Spreading the message. The message of less and better needs to be amplified and spread across the population to make different people in society aware of the issue. This also needs to underpin policy. It was proposed that schools are a good place to target for awareness raising and encouraging a new generation to change behaviour. Twinning small farms with schools could provide opportunities.

Are tech solutions the answer? Policy makers seem to be attracted by tech solutions from Silicon Valley to address meat consumption and marine fish sustainability through replacement by lab-grown proteins. There needs to be greater focus on what food system is envisioned, including discussion of the social and ethical considerations and whether so-called ‘clean’ meat is an alternative.

Wasting less. It is also important to tackle waste of animal products, in addition to ‘valuing’ food and respecting farm animals, messaging needs to be: Wasting less makes good sense, whatever way you look at it – economic, ecological, animal welfare and climate. 7



Price of food / Valuing food. A challenge for behaviour change is the abundance of cheap dairy and meat that has become accepted as the norm. This has driven consumption and a devaluation of food. We need to encourage people to value it more, and to educate people to help them understand the difference. Customers buying grass-fed meat are usually aware of the ‘less and better’ message and don’t necessarily eat meat all the time. Some are more affluent, but not always. It was felt that these customers were still a long way from people living with poverty in urban areas whose needs and concerns are different. The Food Ethics Council’s work on food citizenship (see here) was recommended as a useful resource for considering how to cultivate new ways for people to value their food – as an active citizen, rather than a passive consumer.

Existing certification schemes. It was suggested that there is a need to look at the merits and de-merits of existing certification schemes, where to place baseline minimum standards and whether something superior is needed. It was also noted that some supermarkets are moving away from adopting existing certification programmes and developing their own in-house benchmarks. In foodservice, adoption of any higher welfare or environmental certification standards for meat and dairy is pretty rare, undertaken by pioneers and those with a higher-end brand. Chefs can play an important role in promoting less and better. Research into pasture farming. Some is underway, but more is needed with Government support. This should include research to identify the optimum stocking rates/best practice for carbon reduction and to identify land where livestock grazing is unsuited. Of note is that the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology are shortly starting a 3-year research project looking at the Pasture for Life approach to farming, including ecology (of which carbon sequestration will be a part), economics and sociology. The Pasture Fed Livestock Association (PFLA) are also engaged in a research project with Newcastle University to assess the effect of a wholly pasture diet on the biochemistry and nutritional value of meat and milk.

Nutritional benefits. It was suggested there is a need to focus on the value of grass-fed animal protein in terms of nutritional benefits. There have been studies in America showing higher levels of omega 3 fats in grassfed and extensive meat, versus intensively produced and grain-fed meat.

Research Metrics and the challenge of measuring sustainable food practices on-farm. The question was raised as to how we measure carbon and sustainability more broadly on farms and how do we make this accessible and useful to farmers? What do we ask them to measure and how can we help them to do it better? It was noted there are at least 5, shortly to be 6, different methods that farmers can use for measuring on-farm carbon footprint, with a bewildering range of results. Additionally these measurements and certification schemes are all industry, not government led (although Defra is bringing out an upgraded version of their method). We need better agreement on metrics to support and drive policy and to distinguish ‘better’ on-farm practices. However we shouldn’t wait for the ‘perfect’ metrics though, as we may never start. We know the direction we need to be going in and can improve the measurement as we go. Additionally how do we balance concern for climate change with concern for other issues, and communicate that to farmers?

8



Conclusion

We recognise that the workshop discussions embrace complex issues and there is more work to be done to understand these more fully. At the same time the need to address climate change is urgent and there is shared agreement on the direction of travel and the vital importance of food and agriculture being part of the solution. A clear message from the workshop is that from a GHG emission perspective we need to eat less of all types of meat, and we will not meet the desired GHG reductions simply by swapping from one kind of meat to another, e.g. beef to chicken. Maintaining current consumption patterns, and the upward trend in consumption of animal products, is catastrophic for land-use change and deforestation, and not mitigated by switching at the same level of consumption to e.g. grass-fed from intensive systems. Hence, while promoting ‘better’ meat and dairy produced to higher welfare and environmental standards is desirable, it only makes sense in the context of consuming considerably ‘less’.

While pasture-fed livestock can offer environmental benefits, typically in aggregate grazing ruminants emit more GHGs than they can potentially sequester. However it is vitally important to maintain and build soil carbon stores including by farming in ways that maintain soil carbon. The workshop discussions raised the broader question of what is the ‘least bad’ way of using land? It was noted that we need to open our minds to alternative uses for grazing land that might be better for carbon sequestration and biodiversity such as woodland creation. We intend that the outputs from the workshop will help inform organisations and provide a useful contribution to current policy thinking on how to shift livestock production and consumption onto more sustainable pathways. It will also be useful in helping Eating Better navigate the complexities and to inform our future work. We look forward to continuing constructive conversations with civil society organisations and researchers, as well as farmers, policy makers and food companies.

9



The workshop took place on Monday 27 November, 1.30-4.30pm at the offices of the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation in London.

Participants Zephie Begolo ProVeg

Carol McKenna Compassion in World Farming

Lucy Bjorck RSPB

David Mottershead Institute for European Environmental Policy

Aileen Corrieri Eating Better

Clare Oxborrow Friends of the Earth

Kath Dalmeny Sustain

Sam Packer Soil Association

Sue Dibb Eating Better

Richard Perkins WWF-UK

Simon Fairlie Editor, The Land magazine and author of ‘Meat: A Benign Extravagance’

Mark Pershin Less Meat Less Heat Elena Salazar Eating Better

Tara Garnett Food Climate Research Network

Alexandra Sexton University of Oxford

Helen Harwatt Humane Society International

Laurence Smith Organic Research Centre

Charlie Huson Humane Society International – UK

John Turner Campaign for Real Farming

Ylva Johannesson Sustainable Restaurant Association

Nusa Urbancic Changing Markets

John Kazer Carbon Trust

Daniel Vennard World Resources Institute

Sam Lee-Gammage Food Climate Research Network

Fidelity Weston Pasture Fed Livestock Association

Carol Lever Free Range Dairy Network

Richard Young Sustainable Food Trust

10