Exclusive: Study released at Cop28 misused research to underestimate impact of cutting meat eating, say academics

A flagship UN report on livestock emissions is facing calls for retraction from two key experts it cited who say that the paper “seriously distorted” their work.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) misused their research to underestimate the potential of reduced meat intake to cut agricultural emissions, according to a letter sent to the FAO by the two academics, which the Guardian has seen.

Paul Behrens, an associate professor at Leiden University and Matthew Hayek, an assistant professor at New York University, both accuse the FAO study of systematic errors, poor framing, and highly inappropriate use of source data.

Hayek told the Guardian: “The FAO’s errors were multiple, egregious, conceptual and all had the consequence of reducing the emissions mitigation possibilities from dietary change far below what they should be. None of the mistakes had the opposite effect.”

  • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    I thin the real answer is lab grown meat, but humans are too dogmatic and stupid to simply accept a solution to a problem…

    • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s on its way! One brand is FDA approved, waiting on USDA approval. The delay is more about necessary materials not being available at scale than consumer opinion. Mixing lab grown animal fat with vegetable protein will help with the initial cost prohibitive issues, and apparently tastes great as a sausage type product.

      https://www.bonappetit.com/story/lab-grown-meat

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Meanwhile some states are pushing to ban lab grown meat before it’s even become a product that can be tested as an actual product heading to market.

        • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah, but it’s the same states that are trying to ban solar panels because “muh coal!!” They slow progress, but they won’t stop it.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yea, I’d rather we kick them in the balls so they stop slowing good things down while the world burns, but maybe I’m the only one who sees the benefits of a world without contemptable morons in charge.

    • davepleasebehave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      the real answer is to just start a.plant based diet which already has palatable meat alternatives. why bother waiting for lab grown meat?

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Because most people don’t WANT a vegetarian diet, and forcing people to do things is both stupid and doesn’t work. Therefore, a meat option that’s not terrible is the obvious correct path forward.

        • davepleasebehave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          I never said I would force anyone. that seems to be an issue on your side.

          I’d be happy to talk about plant diets if you are interested.

          the article makes it clear that it is a significant way to reduce greenhouse gases. the extra land could also be reforested. just two environmental advantages.

        • davepleasebehave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          if eating meat is vital to your personality then you should continue.

          The implications of this article is that big corporations are manipulating science and society in order to sell something that is most probably dangerous to the environment.