1.3 Transformation of agriculture

Our diets and the corresponding forms of agriculture and food production are also a central field of action of the socio-ecological transformation. It is about the basic need for a balanced and healthy diet, which until today is by no means reliably met for all people, and also about the high value that food has for a good life, including enjoyment and zest for life. In addition, agriculture and food production have far-reaching consequences for the environment (biodiversity, soils, groundwater, air, climate, oceans, etc.), for animal welfare, human health and working conditions in agriculture and food production.

Especially the high consumption of meat with its associated problems illustrates the current need for transformation: per capita meat consumption in Germany is 60 kg per year, although the German Nutrition Society recommends only half of this amount as the upper limit for a healthy diet. The excessively high consumption of meat which often is of low quality, not only exacerbates climate change and human health problems (directly through unbalanced diets, as well as indirectly through the spread of antibiotic resistances), but also global imbalances. The high land usage for increasing feed production exacerbates conflicts over water and scarce arable land. The phosphorus and nitrogen cycles of our planet are now severely impaired and the global species composition has also changed massively: The total mass of humans and their farm animals is now more than twenty times the mass of free-living mammals²⁵, and the biodiversity in our oceans is severely threatened by overfishing and pollution. Added to this are the working conditions in large-scale industrial meat processing, which undermine SDG 8 ("Decent Work"), as was brought to greater public attention during the Corona pandemic.

The following graph (Fig. 5) accentuates the double negative effect of meat nutrition (especially the consumption of red meat, i.e. beef and pork) on the environment and on human health.

The reference to the social and ecological consequences of current meat production does not simply bring about the necessary changes in this case either. On the contrary: it is true that in certain socio-cultural milieus, more and more people are only buying meat that meets certain criteria (especially ecological and animal welfare criteria), or are doing without meat or dairy products altogether. However, global meat consumption has tripled in the past 50 years as the world's population has doubled – and the trend is upwards: according to estimates by the UN World Food Organisation, meat production will continue to grow by up to 55% by 2050²⁷ – whereby meat consumption will soon overtake domestic production in Asia (driven by growing per capita consumption) and in Africa (driven by rising population figures with comparatively stable per capita consumption)²⁸. In contrast, the organic meat sector still represents a niche despite significant growth rates.

Here, too, there are identifiable factors that counteract change: Behavioural routines which are supported by socio-cultural norms ("A good meal includes a decent piece of meat") and taste habits shape the demand in a significant way, but cannot be changed easily. Above all, a general willingness to pay a fair price for good food is important. This means a more moderate and quality-conscious meat consumption and the promotion of family and small-scale farming structures, which have created our species-rich cultural landscape in the first place and have the potential to make a significant contribution to climate protection (for example by preserving grassland and building up humus).

On the side of production, the necessary change is opposed to the subsidisation of agricultural production methods that have been practised for decades and that are maintained by interest groups. The subsidies are harmful to the environment and the climate as well as globally unjust. They are too one-sidedly oriented towards land and for a long time also towards direct export promotion and should be abolished and replaced by a consistent remuneration of the agricultural contributions to the preservation of the many ecosystem services.

As challenging as this turnaround is in the face of strong forces of persistence and resistance, it is possible. The necessary change in awareness may take place in niches until now. However, it is vital enough to be further strengthened by politically driven incentives and guidelines for production and trade. Recent studies indicate that smarter methods to avoid deforestation, over-fertilisation and incorrect irrigation as well as the rewetting of peatlands could already make an enormous contribution to both climate protection and food security in a few selected countries.²⁹ It is to be hoped that the calls for better international cooperation and stronger regulation as well as more transparency in the food industry that became louder during the Corona crisis will now actually be implemented – the potential is there.