Tag Archives: more

Scotland: time for a National Food Service? Updated for 2026





Scotland’s brief period at the top of the international news agenda last month is over, for now. But the debate leading up to the independence referendum revealed a huge desire to make Scotland a better place.

Since the referendum, thousands of Scots have joined political parties for the first times in their lives, and the networks formed during the campaign are busy planning for the future. Conversations about change are continuing.

This Thursday and Friday in Glasgow, farmers from Scotland, India, Malawi and Trinidad and Tobago and campaigners from Canada and California will join nutritionists, climate scientists and experts on food poverty and food banks at the Nourish Scotland conference to discuss how to make food in Scotland better, fairer, healthier and more sustainable.

Only one in five Scots get their ‘five a day’

It’s a formidable challenge. More than a quarter of people in Scotland are obese. Only one in five adults eats five portions of fruit and vegetables per day, and Scots eat less fruit, vegetables and fish than their English neighbours.

There is a huge and growing inequality of diet between rich and poor, and the number of people using food banks has risen sharply in the past two years. Supermarkets dominate food retail, and highly processed food features prominently in many people’s diets.

Industrial farming methods are harming soil quality and biodiversity. Meanwhile 40% of Scotland’s food is imported, with serious implications for our carbon footprint and for our impact on the lives of others.

But the resources available are also impressive. Despite its high rate of imports, Scotland is a net exporter of food, producing far more than it eats. The seas around Scotland are rich in fish and seafood. There is plenty of arable land – around the same area per person as in India, which produces almost all of its own food.

To grow enough vegetables for everyone in Scotland to eat the recommended quantity would require an area of land smaller than that taken up by Scotland’s urban gardens.

A more holistic food policy

Change is required on many different levels if we are to make sure everyone in Scotland can eat well, as well as playing our part in ensuring everyone in the world can eat well, without trashing the planet.

Crucially, we need to look at our food system as a whole. For many years, government policy on food production in Scotland has been all about profit and export – and the food industry has been allowed to pursue ever greater profit regardless of the social, environmental and health impact in Scotland and beyond.

Nutrition has been seen largely as the responsibility of individuals, with government providing dietary advice but making little attempt to make healthy food more available and affordable.

The Scottish government has started to take small steps towards a more holistic food policy. For example, it has committed to extending the provision of free school meals, and improving the quality of food in schools and hospitals.

Food, and the land that produces it, as common goods?

Land – intimately bound up with food – is also receiving some long overdue attention.

Distribution of land in Scotland is more unequal than anywhere else in Europe, with fewer than one thousand people owning half of all land. Many landowners use their land for recreational hunting, shooting and fishing, rather than for food production.

The Scottish government has promised to make land distribution fairer, and a recent government study recommended limiting the size of landholdings and giving tenant farmers the right to buy the land they farm.

Legislation introduced in 2003 to help communities acquire land has already allowed 500,000 acres of land to come under community ownership, and a target of a million acres has been set for 2020.

A new strategy published for consultation this year, entitled ‘Becoming a Good Food Nation’, sets out aspirations for government policy to focus on health, particularly for children, and to support the production and sale of locally grown food, including through public sector food buying.

These are steps in the right direction, and the impetus towards a fairer, more sustainable food system is being driven forward by a diverse movement of small farmers and food businesses, community gardens, and networks established to increase access to affordable, healthy, local food.

However, the reality is that food remains overwhelmingly dominated by big, global businesses, which focus on profit, not on feeding people well or on preserving the planet for future generations.

There are, to be sure, positive initiatives by big business, for example to reduce salt content in foods and to use less packaging. But with food being primarily driven by profit, such voluntary programmes cannot bring about the huge changes we need.

If we started treating food as a common good, and farming and food production as services delivering good nutrition, good work, strong communities and healthy, biodiverse, resilient environments, we could create the potential for profound positive transformation.

Vegetables on prescription?

In Scotland, this could lead to farmers having a similar role as GPs (‘general practitioners’ – family doctors) do in the National Health Service: GPs are public servants at the same time as being small to medium enterprises. Vegetables could be available on prescription, and subsidised for low-income families.

It could mean people sharing responsibility for food production, as citizens not just consumers, with much more of our food coming from allotments, community gardens and farms in and around cities.

Government could adopt a zero-tolerance approach to hunger in Scotland, monitoring it, measuring it, and finding a better long-term solution than food banks.

Small-scale, organic, sustainable farming could be supported through public subsidies, and food policy focused on production for local people rather than for export. Trees could be planted on pasture, reducing the risks of soil erosion and flooding.

We could introduce rules to help ensure the food we do import is produced to high social and environmental standards.

These are just a few of the many, many things we could do to radically reshape food in Scotland for the better. Food sustains and nourishes not just individuals but also families, communities and our whole society. It’s too important to be left to the market.

 


 

The conference: Nourish Scotland takes place in Glasgow this week on 16th and 17th October 2014.

Pete Ritchie is the director of Nourish Scotland. Nourish aims to reshape the way food works in Scotland into a system that’s fair, healthy, affordable and sustainable.

Miriam Ross is a freelance writer and researcher.

 




385475

Greenpeace victory – LEGO ends Shell promotion link Updated for 2026





Following a Greenpeace campaign attracting over a million supporters, LEGO published a statement this morning promising that its promotion deal with Shell will lapse:

“We continuously consider many different ways of how to deliver on our promise of bringing creative play to more children. We want to clarify that as things currently stand we will not renew the co-promotion contract with Shell when the present contract ends.”

This decision comes a month after Shell submitted plans to the US administration showing it’s once again gearing up to drill in the melting Arctic next year, and as it argues with US authorities to lower environmental standards in the Arctic.

During Greenpeace’s three month campaign, more than one million people signed a petition calling on LEGO to stop promoting Shell’s brand because of its plans to drill for oil in the pristine Arctic.

Ian Duff, Arctic campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “This is a major blow to Shell. It desperately needs partners like LEGO to help give it respectability and repair the major brand damage it suffered after its last Arctic misadventure. Lego’s withdrawal from a 50 year relationship with Shell clearly shows that strategy will not work.”

“The tide is turning for these fossil fuel dinosaurs that see the melting Arctic as ripe for exploitation rather than protection. The message should be clear; your outdated, climate wrecking practices are no longer socially acceptable, and you need to keep away from the Arctic or face being ostracised by society.”

LEGO committed to renewable energy

In stark contrast to Shell, LEGO’s policies include a commitment to produce more renewable energy than they use, phase out oil in their products and, in cooperation with its partners, leave a better world for future generations.

In its statement, LEGO argued the dispute was between Greenpeace and Shell. “The Greenpeace campaign uses the LEGO brand to target Shell. As we have stated before, we firmly believe Greenpeace ought to have a direct conversation with Shell.

“The LEGO brand, and everyone who enjoys creative play, should never have become part of Greenpeace’s dispute with Shell.”

However, Greenpeace insists that while LEGO is doing the right thing under public pressure, it should choose its partners more carefully when it comes to the threats facing our children from climate change.

Due to contractual obligations, LEGO’s current co-promotion with Shell will be honoured.

The fossil fuel industry is losing friends, fast

LEGO is the latest in a line of leading global companies to walk away from a relationship with the fossil fuel industry.

In late 2012 Waitrose announced it has put its partnership with Shell on ice and in the last month Microsoft, Google and Facebook all made commitments to end their support for ALEC, a controversial lobby group that campaigns against climate change legislation.

Only weeks ago, the Rockefeller Foundation announced it will begin pulling its investments in the fossil fuel industry.

Shell has also come under pressure for its sponsorship links to UK arts organisations including the Southbank Centre.

“LEGO’s decision couldn’t have come soon enough”, said Duff. “The iconic and beautiful Arctic, and its incredible wildlife, like polar bears and narwhals, is under threat like never before. Arctic sea ice is melting at an unprecedented rate, but instead of seeing the huge risks, oil companies like Shell are circling like vultures.

“Only weeks ago Shell gave us the clearest indication yet that it’s planning to go back to the Arctic as soon as next summer.”

Shell’s Arctic ambitions plagued with difficulties

Shell’s past attempts to drill in the Arctic have been plagued with multiple operational failings culminating in the running aground of its drilling rig, the Kulluk.

The extreme Arctic conditions, including giant floating ice-bergs and stormy seas, make offshore drilling extremely risky. And scientists say that in the Arctic, an oil spill would be impossible to clean up meaning devastation for the Arctic’s unique wildlife [6].

But on 28 August 2014 Shell submitted new plans to the US administration for offshore exploratory drilling in the Alaskan Arctic, meaning it’s on course to resurrect its Arctic drilling plans as early as summer 2015.

In the past two years, a massive global movement has emerged calling for a sanctuary around the North Pole, to protect the Arctic and its unique wildlife from the onslaught of oil drilling and industrial fishing.

More than six million people have joined the movement, and more than 1,000 influential people have signed an Arctic Declaration, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Emma Thompson and Sir Paul McCartney.

On 19 September UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, met with Arctic campaigners to receive a global petition and said he would consider convening an international summit to discuss the issue of Arctic protection.

 

 




385235

The UN saved the ozone layer – now it’s the climate’s turn Updated for 2026





It sometimes feels as if environmental news is never good news, but that certainly isn’t true when it comes to the ozone layer. The UN has announced that the ozone layer is showing signs of recovery.

Evidence has pointed to recovery for some time, but researchers have waited until they were confident that the hole in the ozone layer was beginning to heal. It’s not yet restored to perfect health – that will take a few more decades – but a significant corner has been turned.

That good news comes 30 years after governments around the world began to sign up to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

Solving global environmental problems takes time, but the success of the Vienna convention, and the Montreal Protocol that puts the convention in to action, is proof that when the world works together, and keeps working together even when the going gets tough, it can deliver the solutions that we all need.

Of course, having written “that we all need” begs an important question. Why does the ozone hole matter to me?

We have all seen those NASA images of the ozone hole over the Antarctic, but that’s a long way from where most of the planet’s population lives. It’s a little like that scene at the end of ‘Happy Feet’ where the politicians challenged to respond to the plight of the penguins ask why they should “worry about a load of flightless birds”.

So why should we worry whether or not there is a little more or less ozone, a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere, than there might have been if we hadn’t all changed our fridges and under-arm deodorants?

What’s the ozone layer ever done for us?

The most obvious answer is that the ozone layer protects us from ultraviolet (UV) light, and that being exposed to too much UV can eventually cause skin cancers. OK, but just how many skin cancers have been prevented by protecting the ozone layer?

Until recently, it has been hard to answer that with any sort of numbers, but research has begun to model what the world would have been like if we had not protected the Earth’s ozone layer.

These ‘world avoided’ models are indicating that without the Montreal Protocol people around the world would already be exposed to increases in UV. Those increases would be enough to be causing skin damage that, over time, would mean more people developing skin cancers.

In fact, the most recent estimate of what would have happened without ozone protection suggests that by 2030 there would have been around 2 million more cases of skin cancer a year worldwide.

That can’t be a precise figure, but even if we take as a ‘ball-park’ estimate, that’s 2 million people every year being saved from skin cancer because governments acted to protect the ozone layer.

Looking over a longer timescale, do the maths. Two million fewer skin cancers a year, year on year on year soon generates some very large numbers. And those figures don’t take in to account the massive ozone depletion that would have occurred worldwide by the middle of this century.

Can we do it again, with climate?

That collapse in global ozone is a consistent outcome of ‘world-avoided’ research and would have increased UV levels around the world beyond anything that has ever been experienced since humans evolved.

Maybe we could have coped with that, but it would have been difficult. Yes, we can all reduce our exposure to UV by how we choose to behave, that’s probably the biggest factor affecting our risk of skin cancer in the world we actually live in. But what about in the world avoided?

How much sun-cream would you have needed if without protection you would begin to sunburn in just a few minutes? What clothes would you send your children to school in? Health-warning signs on the beaches?

And even if you could cope, what about the damage to crops, to forests and to the oceans that would have resulted from run-away increases in UV, the scale of which we can’t yet really quantify.

So yes, the news that the ozone layer is beginning to recover is a good reason to be cheerful. Be cheerful because we have protected the planet. Be cheerful because we have protected human health.

Above all, perhaps, be cheerful because the success of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol shows that global governments can work together to solve major environmental problems.

When the Vienna Convention was signed no one could be really sure exactly how ozone depletion might develop, but governments were brave enough to make tough decisions based on the best estimates of future risks. 30 years later, research allows us to confirm just how right those decisions were.

Surely that’s good news not just for ozone, but also as we look ahead to the even tougher challenges of responding to climate change.

 


 

Nigel Paul is co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on ozone depletion and Professor of Plant Science at Lancaster University, but he writes here in his personal capacity. During the 1990s he received funding for research in to the effects of ozone depletion from UK research councils and the EU.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 

 




384441

The UN saved the ozone layer – now it’s the climate’s turn Updated for 2026





It sometimes feels as if environmental news is never good news, but that certainly isn’t true when it comes to the ozone layer. The UN has announced that the ozone layer is showing signs of recovery.

Evidence has pointed to recovery for some time, but researchers have waited until they were confident that the hole in the ozone layer was beginning to heal. It’s not yet restored to perfect health – that will take a few more decades – but a significant corner has been turned.

That good news comes 30 years after governments around the world began to sign up to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

Solving global environmental problems takes time, but the success of the Vienna convention, and the Montreal Protocol that puts the convention in to action, is proof that when the world works together, and keeps working together even when the going gets tough, it can deliver the solutions that we all need.

Of course, having written “that we all need” begs an important question. Why does the ozone hole matter to me?

We have all seen those NASA images of the ozone hole over the Antarctic, but that’s a long way from where most of the planet’s population lives. It’s a little like that scene at the end of ‘Happy Feet’ where the politicians challenged to respond to the plight of the penguins ask why they should “worry about a load of flightless birds”.

So why should we worry whether or not there is a little more or less ozone, a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere, than there might have been if we hadn’t all changed our fridges and under-arm deodorants?

What’s the ozone layer ever done for us?

The most obvious answer is that the ozone layer protects us from ultraviolet (UV) light, and that being exposed to too much UV can eventually cause skin cancers. OK, but just how many skin cancers have been prevented by protecting the ozone layer?

Until recently, it has been hard to answer that with any sort of numbers, but research has begun to model what the world would have been like if we had not protected the Earth’s ozone layer.

These ‘world avoided’ models are indicating that without the Montreal Protocol people around the world would already be exposed to increases in UV. Those increases would be enough to be causing skin damage that, over time, would mean more people developing skin cancers.

In fact, the most recent estimate of what would have happened without ozone protection suggests that by 2030 there would have been around 2 million more cases of skin cancer a year worldwide.

That can’t be a precise figure, but even if we take as a ‘ball-park’ estimate, that’s 2 million people every year being saved from skin cancer because governments acted to protect the ozone layer.

Looking over a longer timescale, do the maths. Two million fewer skin cancers a year, year on year on year soon generates some very large numbers. And those figures don’t take in to account the massive ozone depletion that would have occurred worldwide by the middle of this century.

Can we do it again, with climate?

That collapse in global ozone is a consistent outcome of ‘world-avoided’ research and would have increased UV levels around the world beyond anything that has ever been experienced since humans evolved.

Maybe we could have coped with that, but it would have been difficult. Yes, we can all reduce our exposure to UV by how we choose to behave, that’s probably the biggest factor affecting our risk of skin cancer in the world we actually live in. But what about in the world avoided?

How much sun-cream would you have needed if without protection you would begin to sunburn in just a few minutes? What clothes would you send your children to school in? Health-warning signs on the beaches?

And even if you could cope, what about the damage to crops, to forests and to the oceans that would have resulted from run-away increases in UV, the scale of which we can’t yet really quantify.

So yes, the news that the ozone layer is beginning to recover is a good reason to be cheerful. Be cheerful because we have protected the planet. Be cheerful because we have protected human health.

Above all, perhaps, be cheerful because the success of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol shows that global governments can work together to solve major environmental problems.

When the Vienna Convention was signed no one could be really sure exactly how ozone depletion might develop, but governments were brave enough to make tough decisions based on the best estimates of future risks. 30 years later, research allows us to confirm just how right those decisions were.

Surely that’s good news not just for ozone, but also as we look ahead to the even tougher challenges of responding to climate change.

 


 

Nigel Paul is co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on ozone depletion and Professor of Plant Science at Lancaster University, but he writes here in his personal capacity. During the 1990s he received funding for research in to the effects of ozone depletion from UK research councils and the EU.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 

 




384441

The UN saved the ozone layer – now it’s the climate’s turn Updated for 2026





It sometimes feels as if environmental news is never good news, but that certainly isn’t true when it comes to the ozone layer. The UN has announced that the ozone layer is showing signs of recovery.

Evidence has pointed to recovery for some time, but researchers have waited until they were confident that the hole in the ozone layer was beginning to heal. It’s not yet restored to perfect health – that will take a few more decades – but a significant corner has been turned.

That good news comes 30 years after governments around the world began to sign up to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

Solving global environmental problems takes time, but the success of the Vienna convention, and the Montreal Protocol that puts the convention in to action, is proof that when the world works together, and keeps working together even when the going gets tough, it can deliver the solutions that we all need.

Of course, having written “that we all need” begs an important question. Why does the ozone hole matter to me?

We have all seen those NASA images of the ozone hole over the Antarctic, but that’s a long way from where most of the planet’s population lives. It’s a little like that scene at the end of ‘Happy Feet’ where the politicians challenged to respond to the plight of the penguins ask why they should “worry about a load of flightless birds”.

So why should we worry whether or not there is a little more or less ozone, a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere, than there might have been if we hadn’t all changed our fridges and under-arm deodorants?

What’s the ozone layer ever done for us?

The most obvious answer is that the ozone layer protects us from ultraviolet (UV) light, and that being exposed to too much UV can eventually cause skin cancers. OK, but just how many skin cancers have been prevented by protecting the ozone layer?

Until recently, it has been hard to answer that with any sort of numbers, but research has begun to model what the world would have been like if we had not protected the Earth’s ozone layer.

These ‘world avoided’ models are indicating that without the Montreal Protocol people around the world would already be exposed to increases in UV. Those increases would be enough to be causing skin damage that, over time, would mean more people developing skin cancers.

In fact, the most recent estimate of what would have happened without ozone protection suggests that by 2030 there would have been around 2 million more cases of skin cancer a year worldwide.

That can’t be a precise figure, but even if we take as a ‘ball-park’ estimate, that’s 2 million people every year being saved from skin cancer because governments acted to protect the ozone layer.

Looking over a longer timescale, do the maths. Two million fewer skin cancers a year, year on year on year soon generates some very large numbers. And those figures don’t take in to account the massive ozone depletion that would have occurred worldwide by the middle of this century.

Can we do it again, with climate?

That collapse in global ozone is a consistent outcome of ‘world-avoided’ research and would have increased UV levels around the world beyond anything that has ever been experienced since humans evolved.

Maybe we could have coped with that, but it would have been difficult. Yes, we can all reduce our exposure to UV by how we choose to behave, that’s probably the biggest factor affecting our risk of skin cancer in the world we actually live in. But what about in the world avoided?

How much sun-cream would you have needed if without protection you would begin to sunburn in just a few minutes? What clothes would you send your children to school in? Health-warning signs on the beaches?

And even if you could cope, what about the damage to crops, to forests and to the oceans that would have resulted from run-away increases in UV, the scale of which we can’t yet really quantify.

So yes, the news that the ozone layer is beginning to recover is a good reason to be cheerful. Be cheerful because we have protected the planet. Be cheerful because we have protected human health.

Above all, perhaps, be cheerful because the success of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol shows that global governments can work together to solve major environmental problems.

When the Vienna Convention was signed no one could be really sure exactly how ozone depletion might develop, but governments were brave enough to make tough decisions based on the best estimates of future risks. 30 years later, research allows us to confirm just how right those decisions were.

Surely that’s good news not just for ozone, but also as we look ahead to the even tougher challenges of responding to climate change.

 


 

Nigel Paul is co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on ozone depletion and Professor of Plant Science at Lancaster University, but he writes here in his personal capacity. During the 1990s he received funding for research in to the effects of ozone depletion from UK research councils and the EU.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 

 




384441

The UN saved the ozone layer – now it’s the climate’s turn Updated for 2026





It sometimes feels as if environmental news is never good news, but that certainly isn’t true when it comes to the ozone layer. The UN has announced that the ozone layer is showing signs of recovery.

Evidence has pointed to recovery for some time, but researchers have waited until they were confident that the hole in the ozone layer was beginning to heal. It’s not yet restored to perfect health – that will take a few more decades – but a significant corner has been turned.

That good news comes 30 years after governments around the world began to sign up to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

Solving global environmental problems takes time, but the success of the Vienna convention, and the Montreal Protocol that puts the convention in to action, is proof that when the world works together, and keeps working together even when the going gets tough, it can deliver the solutions that we all need.

Of course, having written “that we all need” begs an important question. Why does the ozone hole matter to me?

We have all seen those NASA images of the ozone hole over the Antarctic, but that’s a long way from where most of the planet’s population lives. It’s a little like that scene at the end of ‘Happy Feet’ where the politicians challenged to respond to the plight of the penguins ask why they should “worry about a load of flightless birds”.

So why should we worry whether or not there is a little more or less ozone, a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere, than there might have been if we hadn’t all changed our fridges and under-arm deodorants?

What’s the ozone layer ever done for us?

The most obvious answer is that the ozone layer protects us from ultraviolet (UV) light, and that being exposed to too much UV can eventually cause skin cancers. OK, but just how many skin cancers have been prevented by protecting the ozone layer?

Until recently, it has been hard to answer that with any sort of numbers, but research has begun to model what the world would have been like if we had not protected the Earth’s ozone layer.

These ‘world avoided’ models are indicating that without the Montreal Protocol people around the world would already be exposed to increases in UV. Those increases would be enough to be causing skin damage that, over time, would mean more people developing skin cancers.

In fact, the most recent estimate of what would have happened without ozone protection suggests that by 2030 there would have been around 2 million more cases of skin cancer a year worldwide.

That can’t be a precise figure, but even if we take as a ‘ball-park’ estimate, that’s 2 million people every year being saved from skin cancer because governments acted to protect the ozone layer.

Looking over a longer timescale, do the maths. Two million fewer skin cancers a year, year on year on year soon generates some very large numbers. And those figures don’t take in to account the massive ozone depletion that would have occurred worldwide by the middle of this century.

Can we do it again, with climate?

That collapse in global ozone is a consistent outcome of ‘world-avoided’ research and would have increased UV levels around the world beyond anything that has ever been experienced since humans evolved.

Maybe we could have coped with that, but it would have been difficult. Yes, we can all reduce our exposure to UV by how we choose to behave, that’s probably the biggest factor affecting our risk of skin cancer in the world we actually live in. But what about in the world avoided?

How much sun-cream would you have needed if without protection you would begin to sunburn in just a few minutes? What clothes would you send your children to school in? Health-warning signs on the beaches?

And even if you could cope, what about the damage to crops, to forests and to the oceans that would have resulted from run-away increases in UV, the scale of which we can’t yet really quantify.

So yes, the news that the ozone layer is beginning to recover is a good reason to be cheerful. Be cheerful because we have protected the planet. Be cheerful because we have protected human health.

Above all, perhaps, be cheerful because the success of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol shows that global governments can work together to solve major environmental problems.

When the Vienna Convention was signed no one could be really sure exactly how ozone depletion might develop, but governments were brave enough to make tough decisions based on the best estimates of future risks. 30 years later, research allows us to confirm just how right those decisions were.

Surely that’s good news not just for ozone, but also as we look ahead to the even tougher challenges of responding to climate change.

 


 

Nigel Paul is co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on ozone depletion and Professor of Plant Science at Lancaster University, but he writes here in his personal capacity. During the 1990s he received funding for research in to the effects of ozone depletion from UK research councils and the EU.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 

 




384441

The UN saved the ozone layer – now it’s the climate’s turn Updated for 2026





It sometimes feels as if environmental news is never good news, but that certainly isn’t true when it comes to the ozone layer. The UN has announced that the ozone layer is showing signs of recovery.

Evidence has pointed to recovery for some time, but researchers have waited until they were confident that the hole in the ozone layer was beginning to heal. It’s not yet restored to perfect health – that will take a few more decades – but a significant corner has been turned.

That good news comes 30 years after governments around the world began to sign up to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

Solving global environmental problems takes time, but the success of the Vienna convention, and the Montreal Protocol that puts the convention in to action, is proof that when the world works together, and keeps working together even when the going gets tough, it can deliver the solutions that we all need.

Of course, having written “that we all need” begs an important question. Why does the ozone hole matter to me?

We have all seen those NASA images of the ozone hole over the Antarctic, but that’s a long way from where most of the planet’s population lives. It’s a little like that scene at the end of ‘Happy Feet’ where the politicians challenged to respond to the plight of the penguins ask why they should “worry about a load of flightless birds”.

So why should we worry whether or not there is a little more or less ozone, a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere, than there might have been if we hadn’t all changed our fridges and under-arm deodorants?

What’s the ozone layer ever done for us?

The most obvious answer is that the ozone layer protects us from ultraviolet (UV) light, and that being exposed to too much UV can eventually cause skin cancers. OK, but just how many skin cancers have been prevented by protecting the ozone layer?

Until recently, it has been hard to answer that with any sort of numbers, but research has begun to model what the world would have been like if we had not protected the Earth’s ozone layer.

These ‘world avoided’ models are indicating that without the Montreal Protocol people around the world would already be exposed to increases in UV. Those increases would be enough to be causing skin damage that, over time, would mean more people developing skin cancers.

In fact, the most recent estimate of what would have happened without ozone protection suggests that by 2030 there would have been around 2 million more cases of skin cancer a year worldwide.

That can’t be a precise figure, but even if we take as a ‘ball-park’ estimate, that’s 2 million people every year being saved from skin cancer because governments acted to protect the ozone layer.

Looking over a longer timescale, do the maths. Two million fewer skin cancers a year, year on year on year soon generates some very large numbers. And those figures don’t take in to account the massive ozone depletion that would have occurred worldwide by the middle of this century.

Can we do it again, with climate?

That collapse in global ozone is a consistent outcome of ‘world-avoided’ research and would have increased UV levels around the world beyond anything that has ever been experienced since humans evolved.

Maybe we could have coped with that, but it would have been difficult. Yes, we can all reduce our exposure to UV by how we choose to behave, that’s probably the biggest factor affecting our risk of skin cancer in the world we actually live in. But what about in the world avoided?

How much sun-cream would you have needed if without protection you would begin to sunburn in just a few minutes? What clothes would you send your children to school in? Health-warning signs on the beaches?

And even if you could cope, what about the damage to crops, to forests and to the oceans that would have resulted from run-away increases in UV, the scale of which we can’t yet really quantify.

So yes, the news that the ozone layer is beginning to recover is a good reason to be cheerful. Be cheerful because we have protected the planet. Be cheerful because we have protected human health.

Above all, perhaps, be cheerful because the success of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol shows that global governments can work together to solve major environmental problems.

When the Vienna Convention was signed no one could be really sure exactly how ozone depletion might develop, but governments were brave enough to make tough decisions based on the best estimates of future risks. 30 years later, research allows us to confirm just how right those decisions were.

Surely that’s good news not just for ozone, but also as we look ahead to the even tougher challenges of responding to climate change.

 


 

Nigel Paul is co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on ozone depletion and Professor of Plant Science at Lancaster University, but he writes here in his personal capacity. During the 1990s he received funding for research in to the effects of ozone depletion from UK research councils and the EU.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 

 




384441

Changing to non-GMO soy transformed the health of my pigs Updated for 2026





I want to tell you what I have seen on my farm and about the on-farm and lab investigations carried out in collaboration with Professor Monika Krüger and other scientists.

My farm – ‘Pilegaarden’ – which translates as ‘Willow Farm’ – is an average Danish farm in the small village of Hvidsten. Our pigs are raised accordingly to United Kingdom regulations for pig housing, and exported to the UK for consumption.

Inside the pig farm is a straw-based system for the sows as well as a standard farrowing house.

I had read about the effects that GM feed has on rats in lab experiments (see [1] GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile, SiS 33), so I decided to change the feed from GM to non-GM soy in April 2011 without telling the herdsman on the farm.

Instant benefits from non-GMO soy

Two days afterwards, he said to me: “You have changed the food.” He always notices whenever there is any problem with the feed and tells me. This time was different. Something very good was happening with the food as the pigs were not getting diarrhoea any more.

The farm was using two thirds less medicine, saving £7.88 per sow. Not just my farm but three other farms in Denmark that switched from GMO to non GMO feed have also seen the same.

Medication after the changeover in the weaners barn also went down dramatically by 66%. One type of antibiotic has not been used since.

The sows have higher milk production; we can tell because the sows are suckling one, two or three more piglets and have more live born pigs, on average 1.8 piglets more per sow. They wean 1,8 pigs more per litter, and have more live born pigs.

We have seen an aggressive form of diarrhoea disappear altogether from the farm. It affected young piglets in the first week of life, killing up to 30% of the animals. It has completely gone now for over three years.

Sows no longer suffer from bloating or ulcers and they have longer productive lives, only dropping in fertility after eight litters compared to 6 on GM soy.

So, a change to non-GM soy makes the herd easier to manage, improves the health of the herd, reduces medicine usage, increases production and is very profitable.

Glyphosate toxicity

Deformities in the pigs used to be very rare and I used to be proud to send Siamese twins to schools for classes because it was a ‘one in a million’ event. But then they became frequent.

So I read a lot on the subject and my suspicion fell on glyphosate. I read how glyphosate had been shown in scientific studies (see [2] Lab Study Establishes Glyphosate Link to Birth Defects, SiS 48, [3]) to cause deformities and noted it was the same type of deformities that I was seeing in my pigs.

I also observed deformities matching those found in anencephaly babies in Washington counties in US [4] that Don Huber talked about as well as the birth defects in Argentina [5, 6] (Argentinas Roundup Human Tragedy , SiS 48), as described by Dr Medardo Avila-Vasquez where high levels of glyphosate are used.

I had looked at studies showing that a 2-day exposure to 3.07 mg/l glyphosate herbicide caused only 10% mortality but caused malformations in 55% of test animals [7].

A toxicological study in 2003 led by Dr Dallegrave [8] found bone abnormalities, absence of bones or parts of bones, shortened and bent bones, asymmetry, fusions, and clefts in rats. So, after this I began to list all the deformities I saw in my pigs.

A catalogue of deformities in piglets

I decided to be on the safe side, by listing the clear deformities that cannot be missed, like a back that is totally kinked over (see Figure 1). I have pictures of all the deformed piglets, which are born alive in most cases.

One had a 180° bend in one of its vertebra. There were also deformities in the soft tissue, and one without an anus. One had kidney problems; another had its stomach outside the body. One had a cranial deformity, with no eyes and its brain outside the head; this is very typical. One had no cranium at all.

Some are even messier. There was a piglet with only one eye, and one completely headless. There was a little nose, but it had no bones to grow on so it probably would have died just after birth. We also started counting deformities of the tail, which are never fatal but are actually spinal deformities.

I sent the deformed piglets to Germany to be analysed by Krüger at Leipzig University. She opened them up and took the organs including the lungs, liver, kidneys, muscles, nervous system, intestines and heart; and she found glyphosate in all of the organs (see Box). You can see some of them in the scientific paper I published with Krüger and other scientists [9].

Glyphosate detected in malformed piglets

A total of 38 deformed Danish one-day old piglets were euthanized and the tissues analysed for glyphosate using ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay).

All organs or tissues had glyphosate in different concentrations. The highest concentrations were seen in the lungs ((0.4-80mg/ml) and heart (0.15-80 mg/ml). The lowest were in muscles (4.4-6.4 mg/g).

Rate of malformation increased to one out of 260 born piglets if sow feeds contain 0.87-1.13 ppm glyphosate in the first 40 days of pregnancy. In case of 0.25 ppm glyphosate one out of 1,432 piglets was malformed.

These piglets showed different abnormalities as ear atrophy, spinal and cranial deformations, cranium hole in head and leg atrophy; in one piglet only a single large eye developed. Piglets without trunk, with elephant tongue, and female piglet with testes were also present.

One malformed piglet showed a swollen belly and fore gut and hind gut were not connected.

The researchers note: “Further investigations are urgently needed to prove or exclude glyphosate in malformations in piglets and other animals.”

Teratogenic dose a fraction of the regulatory allowed dose

In addition to these experiments, I had over 30,000 piglets born over two years and therefore have statistical data that are not easily available in the lab and this is where farmers have the ideal opportunity to do their own testing.

I tested the food, the foetuses, the urine and the grains that came into the farm. To do the tests, I would take representative samples from the batches of food, mix them, and take 100 grams in a plastic bag of each to be tested, or 100 ml of liquids.

When taking muck and urine for testing, you need patience. Blood tests can be done by a vet. Send it for analyses to a lab that has the facilities to test glyphosate down to about 0.1ppb = 0.1 milligram per tonne. If tests are only detecting at above 0.1ppm = 0.1 grams per ton, it cannot show you what is in urine and muck. It costs about £30-50 for one test. Tests in oils might not be possible; you need to ask beforehand.

The results of the tests showed that with 0.06 mg/kg of glyphosate residue in the feed – much lower than the allowed 20 mg/kg – I was getting cranial and spinal deformities after two months of feeding (see figure 2). At 0.1 mg/kg I was also getting deformities, but not many so that one pig could alter the numbers.

But, at 0.2 mg/kg the deformities start to go up. At the maximum dose used (but still under 12% of the maximum permitted dose) of 2.26 mg/kg the numbers start to get very high.

Fewer piglets per litter

I also got help from Thomas Böhn from Norway who told me to look at longer intervals. We got numbers after six months to see an accumulative effect. The story is exactly the same. There is a very clear difference between low and high levels of glyphosate.

We also looked at the numbers of pigs born in each litter, which was significantly less after eating food with higher levels of glyphosate (see figure 3). We found a significant average difference of 0.95 fewer pigs born per sow when glyphosate was eaten in feed, between ‘low’ and ‘high’ intakes.

This was measured as accumulated intake of glyphosate over a 35 day period – the last five weeks of pregnancy. The ‘low’ intake was defined as under 3 mg/kg body weight, and the high intake was 3-9 mg/kg body weight.

So with glyphosate present in the feed, we have fewer births, as well as the odd ones that are deformed.

In short, a five-fold increase in glyphosate levels from 0.2 to 1 part per million (ppm) resulted in a five-fold increase in cranial and spinal deformities at birth, five times times more abortions, and 0.95 less piglets born per litter.

Glyphosate has known toxicities at extremely low concentrations

We can also relate the actual levels of glyphosate in feed to the level in the urine. So for 1,132 ppb (or 1.13 ppm), there is 44 ppb (~ 4%) in the urine and 246.33 ppb (~22%) in dung.

When I tested my own urine, I found that I had 2.58 ppb – and that is not from eating GM contaminated feed but from eating normal food from the Danish shops.

This is already at the level of higher rates of abortions and deformities and probably also fertility problems. Is this why in the Western world we have a very big problem with fertility (see [9] Glyphosate/Roundup and Human Male Infertility, SiS 62)?

And at 1,000 ppb, glyphosate is patented by Monsanto as an antibiotic, actually killing the beneficial microorganisms. At 0.1 ppb (less than 1/25 the level measured in my urine) Roundup caused tumours in 80% of rats compared to 20% in the controls [10], which only developed them at 700 days.

To have that high level of glyphosate in my urine, I must have consumed at the level of about 0.2ppm or 2,000 times more than the test rats. So what does that mean for the rates of cancer (see [11] Glyphosate and Cancer, SiS 62)?

I have a short film about how it is to be a farmer, I always feel very bad about my pigs getting ill so I leave the film for people to see. These same things must be happening in Chinese farms also, as they are using the same feed as I used to.

Even non-GM soya contains glyphosate and we as farmers need to demand that it is not sprayed down with glyphosate, because it can affect people as well as pigs.

To conclude

Any farmer who switches away from GMOs and Roundup will experience improved health in their herd and crops.

I know of the scientific studies on malformations due to the chemical Roundup. I know that one in 80 people in certain towns in Argentina have the same defects after being exposed to the chemical. And I know of 14 Danish people born with deformities of the same type.

Now what I have seen in my pigs makes me wonder what we are doing – not just to them but to ourselves. And it scares me.

A farmer’s task is to provide nutritious and healthy food for consumers, GMOs and Roundup provide neither. We can look back to DDT and how we thought that was healthy. That should remind us that we cannot ignore the warning signs for glyphosate.

 


 

Ib Borup Pederson is a Danish pig farmer serving the UK market, now also a scientific researcher and campaigner.

This article is based on a lecture by   at the 1st Forum of Development and Environmental Safety, under the theme ‘Food Safety and Sustainable Agriculture 2014’, 25 – 26 July 2014, Beijing. It was originally published by the Institute for Science and Society.

References

  1. Ho MW. GM soya fed rats: stunted, dead or sterile. Science in Society 33, 4-6, 2007.
  2. Ho MW. Lab study establishes glyphosate link to birth defects. Science in Society 48, 32-33, 2010.
  3. Antoniou M. Habib MEM, Howard CV, Jennings RC, Leifert C, Nodari RO, Robinson CJ and Fagan J. Teratogenic effects of glyphosate-based herbicides: divergence of regulatory decisions from scientific evidence. J Environ Anal Toxicol 2012, S4, 006, doi:10,4172/2161-0525.S4-006.http://omicsonline.org/teratogenic-effects-of-glyphosate-based-herbicides-divergence-of-regulatory-decisions-from-scientific-evidence-2161-0525.S4-006.php?aid=7453
  4. Anencephaly Investigation, Washington State Department of Health, accessed 5 September 2014, http://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/IllnessandDisease/BirthDefects/AnencephalyInvestigation
  5. “Birth defects, cancer in Argentina linked to agrochemicals: AP investigation”, Michael Warren and Natacha Pisarenko, The associated Press, 20 October 2013, http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/birth-defects-cancer-in-argentina-linked-to-agrochemicals-ap-investigation-1.1505096
  6. Robinson C. Argentina’s Roundup human tragedy. Science in Society 48, 30-31, 2010.
  7. Lajmanovich RC, Sandoval MT, Peltzer PM. Induction of mortality and malformation in Scinax nasicus tadpoles exposed to glyphosate formulations. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 2003, 70, 612-18.
  8. Dallegrave E, Mantese FD, Coelho RS, Pereira JD, Dalsenter PR, et al. The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats. Toxicol Lett 2003, 142, 45-52.
  9. Krüger M, Schrödl W, Pedersen I and Shehata AA. Detection of glyphosate in malformed piglets. J Eviron Anal Toxicol 2014, 4, 1000230, http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0525.1000230
  10. Ho MW. Glyphosate/Roundup & human male infertility. Science in Society 62, 14-17, 2014.
  11. Sôralini G-E. Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D and de Vendômois JS. Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Rounup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe 2014, 26, 14, doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5, http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
  12. Ho MW. Glyphosate and cancer. Science in Society 62, 12-14, 2014.

 

 




384255

One more heave! Ministers’ pre-election fracking drive Updated for 2026





It’s a question of fear. What secretly worries pro-fracking Conservative ministers, The Ecologist has learned, is that a Labour administration in power after 2015 might reverse the current coalition’s efforts to make widespread fracking possible across the UK.

So in order to make it as hard as possible for the next government to reverse the plans of this one, the Department for Energy and Climate Change is accelerating efforts to get ‘phase one’ of fracking – as one government source calls the current drive – completed before polling day next May.

And they may succeed: none of the three mainstream parties that hold real clout in Westminster are likely to put up much of a fight any time soon.

Labour: intensely relaxed about shale

Right now an odd sort of rapprochement is taking place in Westminster. After years of glaring at each other suspiciously across the despatch boxes, government and opposition frontbenchers might be close to securing consensus on shale gas.

Labour has been creeping towards accepting fracking for some years now. In 2012 it set out a series of regulatory tests designed to limit localised environmental impact. Then, last month, the opposition tabled amendments to the infrastructure bill detailing these.

“If the government accept our amendments we’ll be in a position where there is much more thorough regulation in place”, said Tom Greatrex MP, Labour’s Shadow Energy Minister. “But there are other issues.”

These include the monitoring of methane gas, which remains the subject of a scientific study. A good excuse for Labour to delay its final endorsement of fracking until next year. In response, ministers are considering further concessions to get Labour firmly onside.

A bit more regulation is regarded by pro-fracking Conservatives as a price worth paying to win a swift political agreement. Even the industry has made it clear that they don’t oppose the bulk of Labour’s proposals.

Fracking firms’ only serious concern with Labour’s proposed regulation is the period of time needed to establish ‘baseline’ chemical levels in groundwater before drilling begins. The opposition is calling for a 12-month timeframe, but the United Kingdom Onshore Oil And Gas (UKOOG) thinks three months is plenty.

“This is a very regulated industry already”, said a spokesman. “Whatever government is in place, the industry will be committed to proper regulation and to full consultation with local communities that are affected.”

Nixing the NIMBYs

Oddly, the biggest threat to ministers’ fracking plans comes from backbenchers representing rural constituencies across England’s green and pleasant land – most of which are Conservative. These are the Middle Englanders – the ones who oppose fracking on the time-honoured tradition of ‘not in my back yard’.

Nick Herbert, a former government minister, is among them. Herbert supports fracking nationally, but rejected a proposal for explanatory drilling in his South Downs constituency earlier this year because it involved heavy lorry movements through a pretty local village.

“It’s difficult to judge when the costs of renewable energy might fall”, he says. “What the government must do is reassure those who have concerns about the environmental impact.” He also sees an economic benefit in developing domestic gas sources, since “shale gas could substitute for gas from other countries.”

Herbert, and the NIMBYs in his constituency, are always going to be a problem for the Government. But ministers have a ‘carrot and stick’ plan to reduce the number of times their campaigning actually stops drilling taking place.

Community engagement plans are being developed to combat their concerns. And landowners’ and homeowners’ rights to obstruct fracking under their property are being addressed in the Infrastructure Bill – which will allow energy firms to drill without the owner’s permission.

Campaigners remain defiant, and confident too

Green campaigners are facing a considerable challenge. They are fighting against a firm pro-fracking consensus in Parliament, where arguments about climate change are seemingly only being voiced by a handful of MPs – most visibly the Green MP Caroline Lucas (see photo).

Herbert, in common with ministers, thinks the minority of the population that are seriously worried about fracking and its potentially severe impacts are irrelevant to the debate – and can be safely ignored

But away from Westminster the enemies of fracking remain defiant, and confident. For Hannah Martin, a coordinator of the Say No To Gas group, the imminent election in May 2015 provides the perfect opportunity to squeeze MPs seeking re-election on fracking.

Say No To Gas now comprises 200 community groups which have grown up in the last year or so to stop fracking in their areas, and more are being set up all the time. The network is providing an “unprecedented level of resistance” wherever energy companies seek permits for exploratory drilling, she says.

As for the outcome, she is sure MPs and even ministers will be eager to please concerned constituents in what is likely to be a very close-run election. “It is definitely stoppable”, she insists.

Lib Dems: forgetting the long view

A key target will be Liberal Democrat incumbents desperate to win back popular support which has ebbed away during their time in government.

The party boasted about its environmentalist priorities while in opposition – but has done very little to restrain Conservative ministers in government. Following Cameron’s promise to form Britain’s ‘greenest government ever’, the result has been eco-catastrophe – and the Lib Dems must share the blame for that.

The party insists it has wrung concessions out of the Tories. Applications for exploratory drilling now have to be accompanied by a testing ‘statement of environmental awareness’. Planning guidance makes clear drilling will be refused in sensitive areas – and if the frackers appeal, ministers can ‘call in’ the case to make a final judgement themselves.

None of these really address the fundamentals of shale gas extraction, though. They won’t ensure the carbon from Britain’s shale deposits stays in the ground. Nor will they stop the industrialisation and pollution of countryside which may not all be ‘special’ but is still hugely valued by local people.

Martin Horwood, a Lib Dem MP worried by fracking, says his concerns have shifted away from earthquakes to water contamination and the long-term impact on climate change. “There’s still a lot of scepticism in the party”, he argues.

But will it make any difference? At last year’s autumn conference, the Liberal Democrats passed a motion giving the party’s official blessing to fracking. But it did so in terms that allowed its numerous doubters to keep quiet.

Now the rush is on to implement the policy, we may see further signs of Lib Dem unrest this autumn. So watch the Lib Dem’s party conference, where concerns over fracking may surface with renewed ferocity.

The coalition’s junior partners are unlikely to trigger a big row over the issue if they can help it: on fracking, as with nuclear power, they have allowed the Conservatives to call the shots. But the whiff of a grassroots rebellion among the party ranks could change all that in the blink of an eye.

Ukraine – the joker in the pack

Another dimension is the enthusiasm of American shale gas producers to get into Europe’s gas market. Encouraged by Europe’s growing tensions with Russia, they want to take advantage of the situation and give their flagging industry a new lease of life.

One plan is to open up Europe as a huge new export market for US shale gas. But the US lacks the export infrastructure needed to do this, and realistically the necessary terminals cannot be in place for some years.

The other plan is to use gas shortages in Europe this coming winter to engineer a pro-fracking concensus – and open up Europe’s fracking grounds to US companies.

Right-wing elements in the Ukraine government have already openly advocated closing Russia’s gas pipelines to the EU, something that would suit US fracking interests down to the ground.

But either plan would be a disaster for the planet because – thanks to high energy inputs and fugitive methane emissions from fracking wells – the global warming impact of fracked gas is comparable to that of coal. Add in the impact of shipping from US ports and it only gets worse.

But how big can fracking get anyway?

The switch to low-carbon energy generation, mainly from wind and solar, means that demand for gas should fall dramatically over the next 15 years. By 2030, the International Energy Agency estimates, shale gas could only ever provide 10% of the UK’s energy mix.

Then there is the problem that Europeans will strongly resist paying as much for their gas as the Japanese and emerging-economy countries do.

Some business analysts estimate replacing Russian gas with American shale gas would result in European gas prices doubling. Domestically produced shale gas will also need sustained high prices to be economcially viable, as it costs far more to produce than conventional natural gas.

“Realistically”, says the IPPR think-tank’s Joss Garman, “it’s not going to be a significant part of the answer.”

So the news is not all grim for the anti-frackers. Never mind the political support that fracking has engineered in the three main parties. Straightforward market economics might be enough to make sure that fracking never gets far beyond the starting gate.

Meanwhile determined anti-fracking campaigning aimed at MPs keen for electoral advantage in the 2015 election could make all the difference. It’s called democracy – and since it only comes around ever five years, there’s every reason to use it while we can.

 

 


 

Alex Stevenson is parliamentary editor of politics.co.uk, and an occasional contributor to The Ecologist.

 

 




383901

Dairy – the case for greener, healthier, lower performing cows Updated for 2026





Milk, a precious resource in many parts of the world, has become a throwaway commodity in wealthy countries. For example, in the UK, an estimated 4.2m tonnes of foodstuffs wasted per year are wasted, of which milk is in the top three.

In 2012, the country disposed of 420,000 tonnes of avoidable dairy and egg waste, costing £780m. Perhaps that’s no surprise as supermarkets retail milk for as little as 44p per litre. Bottled water can be two to three times the price.

Such extreme market forces lead to vanishing profit margins, so the dairy industry has had to become super-efficient: fewer, larger herds typically with several hundred, high-yielding Holstein cows capable of producing 10,000 litres per annual lactation cycle, milked by a single dairyman.

These remarkable cattle are the result of highly selective breeding over many generations using a very small pool of elite bulls capable of producing over a million offspring by artificial insemination.

The wonders of modern technology?

A marvellous exemplar of sustainable intensification and food security though application of modern science and technology … perhaps?

From another perspective, the industry has boxed itself into a tight and uncomfortable corner. Modern Holstein dairy cows only last for two to three lactations, rather than the five to eight (or more) of more traditional systems.

These animals carry a heavy burden of nutritional and metabolic diseases and poor fertility, often with adverse consequences for welfare that require routine treatment with antibiotics and hormones – all justifiably of concern to the consumer.

An average of 37% of Holstein cattle suffer from painful lameness, significantly more so than other breeds.

The Holstein cow is arguably the world’s least fertile farm animal. Around 60% require hormonal treatments for successful pregnancy, an obvious prerequisite to the annual calving and lactation cycle.

These treatments may not be harmful to consumers, but routine use of hormones for growth promotion in farm animals was banned in the EU in 1988, and consumers are ill-informed about the risks involved.

Intensive dairy production harms animals and the environment

The prodigious milk yield of Holstein cows involves consumption of energy and protein far beyond the levels available from pasture.

They must be fed a grain-rich diet they are ill-equipped to digest, consuming in a single lactation more than their own body weight of cereals.

Feeding cereals to multi-stomached ruminants such as cattle negates much of their evolutionary advantage, namely their ability to digest fibrous plant material such as forage, green waste and by-products that are of low nutritional value to species such as pigs, poultry or indeed humans.

Importantly, cereals are potential human food and are generally produced using polluting artificial fertiliser. In addition, digestive disorders such as displaced abomasum (one of the cow’s four stomachs) were a relative rarity a generation ago but are now commonplace.

Stepping off the intensification treadmill

In the UK, a minority of dairy farmers use alternative breeds, such as the British Friesian, Ayrshire, or the Montbéliarde. They yield up to 8,000 litres per lactation, but these cows are more robust and are fed primarily off grass or preserved forage in winter, with a modest level of concentrate supplements at peak lactation.

Lameness, mastitis, metabolic disease and infertility are far less frequent than in intensively managed Holsteins. Welfare is less of an issue and antibiotics are rarely necessary, if used at all. Many of these breeds are dual purpose, so their male calves are suitable for rearing for beef, unlike Holsteins in which males are generally disposed of at birth.

Dairy cows fed in pasture also require less inorganic fertiliser for cereal production, with less associated environmental pollution.

A change to a less intensive dairy production system would be in keeping with a broader vision, laying down a number of the basic principles for sustainable livestock. One of the central tenets is reduction in consumption of livestock products by humans, with consumption focussed on quality rather than quantity.

It is worth noting that milk and dairy products from grass-fed cattle are higher in N-3 fatty acids, and conjugated linoleic acids.

20% less milk, 80% less cruelty

Finally, much attention has been placed on cattle as a source of methane, accounting for the majority share of the 14.5% of man-made greenhouse gas attributed to livestock.

It is difficult to predict the value of managerial change to a less intensive dairy system, but there could be other immediate environmental benefits, such as reduction in artificial fertiliser use.

For example, current analysis suggests the overall environmental costs of inorganic nitrogen use in Europe (estimated at €70–€320 billion per year) outweighs its direct economic benefits to agriculture.

The Pareto principle (more widely known as the ’80:20 rule’) is arguably at work here: with the Ayrshire and other less extreme dairy breeds you get 80% of the yield for perhaps only 20% of the welfare cost, and maybe just 20% of the environmental costs too.

Given that today’s overweight consumers perceive milk as low-value and currently throw much of it away, having only 80% of today’s supply might not be too high a price for a sustainable future with healthier, happier cows.

 


 

Mark Eisler is Chair in Global Farm Animal Health at the University of Bristol. He receives funding from the BBSRC, the Royal Society, the Worldwide Universities Network and the Global Innovation Initiative.

Graeme Martin is Winthrop Professor at the University of Western Australia. He has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Meat & Livestock Australia, and the Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation.

Michael Lee is Reader in Sustainable Livestock and Food Security at the University of Bristol. He receives funding from BBSRC.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




383832