The avocados-vs-local-meat argument: a recurring comparison that doesn't hold up to scrutiny

Claim 1: "If the student union is so worried about the environmental impacts of food, presumably they will also ban avocados flown in from the other side of the world, grown in the smoke-blackened embers of rainforest deforestation."

‍Fact check: It’s a well-worn comparison – but Victoria Atkins’s argument about avocados does not stand up to scrutiny.

In shifting the focus onto avocados, the Shadow Environmental Secretary employs a classic “whataboutist” manoeuvre that appears to downplay the environmental impact of meat and dairy. In fact, on climate metrics, it’s not even a contest: producing 1kg of beef emits between 36 and 100 kg of CO₂e versus around 2.5 kg of CO₂e for the same quantity of avocados. Dairy, eggs, fish and chicken all come with considerably higher emissions than avocados too.

Atkins paints a vivid picture of deforestation, but it is misleading to connect the “smoke-blackened embers” only to avocados. Indeed, deforestation is primarily caused by commercial agriculture, including livestock, according to a recent meta-analysis of 234 articles. In Brazil, some 72% of deforestation is driven by cattle ranching.

The emotive evocation of “avocados flown in” is also misleading, since most avocados consumed in the UK arrive by sea. In any case, transport accounts for less than 10% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for most foods; indeed, for beef from beef herds, transport is responsible for just 0.5% of the final product’s emissions.

Although the claims about avocados are taken out of proportion, a sustainable plant-based caterer might choose to leave avocados off the menu. Avocados are associated with a higher water usage than other plant-based proteins (though lower than meat and dairy), and their production can pose human rights issues, including cartel-controlled supply chains in Mexico. The most environmentally friendly protein sources are beans, lentils and chickpeas.

Read more about the avocado argument: Are vegans really destroying the planet with avocados? | foodfacts.org

Claim 2: "Students should have the choice to buy good, local meat and dairy products – produced in the UK, to the highest animal welfare standards in the world." 

‍Fact check: Having evoked the example of avocados implying that not all plant-based foods are perfect, the Shadow Environment Secretary asserts that students should therefore get to choose “local meat”, produced to the highest welfare standards in the world. Her assertion is misleading and unsubstantiated.

Local meat

Local meat is not a climate solution. As a recent review paper noted, basing policy around local food “neither can ensure food security nor does it necessarily have a lower carbon footprint”. Whether we’re talking about regenerative beef or the UK’s recent expansion of intensive poultry units, buying local meat has limited climate benefits.

First, an overemphasis on food miles distracts from more significant environmental metrics. Transport accounts for only 5% of global food emissions, and most of these emissions come from domestic delivery trucks on the road. For most food products, transport accounts for no more than 10% of the total emissions.

Since transport accounts for only a small percentage of an institution's total climate impact, even if all meat and dairy served at an institution were sourced within a 10-mile radius, its environmental performance would still be significantly worse than that of a fully plant-based menu with ingredients from around the world.

Second, plant-based foods don’t have to come from abroad. Oat milk is a more sustainable choice than dairy, and several brands in the UK are 100% British grown. Plant-based menus using whole foods or meat alternatives can both be sourced locally.

Third, the concept of “local meat” is itself an illusion because the UK imports more than three million tonnes of soy from South America to feed animals (primarily chickens) on intensive farms each year. Meeting this demand requires some 850,000 hectares of ghost acres (the area of land abroad used to grow feed for animals within a country), leading to large areas of tropical rainforest being cleared. Even when feed is grown locally, animal agriculture is incredibly inefficient: some 40% of the UK’s most productive cropland is used for animal feed rather than direct human consumption.

Fourth, meat production has health and environmental consequences locally and globally. Local meat increases the spread of zoonotic diseases, heightens the risk of antimicrobial resistance, and contributes to the pollution of local waterways. Add to that the adverse health and amenity impacts for residents living near chicken farms, including deadly particulate matter build-up, and it is no wonder communities are objecting to new intensive farm units rather than clamouring for more.

While local meat is not the answer, there are valid reasons to prioritise a more locally resilient food system, most notably to support farmers and the local economy. Doing so is entirely compatible with the University of Southampton’s plant-based menus.

Animal welfare

The claim that the UK has the “highest animal welfare standards in the world” is often repeated, but has little evidence to back it up.

Having implemented the world’s first national legislation aimed at preventing animal cruelty in 1822, the UK has a longstanding reputation for its animal welfare laws. However, no comprehensive audit has been carried out to back up the claim that its standards are the highest in the world. In recent years, moreover, the UK has moved backwards in some respects, for example by legalising the carrying of chickens by their legs.

Even if the claim were true on paper, the UK has a severe enforcement problem. Written standards have repeatedly been shown not to exist in practice, while labels like "outdoor bred" are used by the meat industry to conceal the realities of industrial animal farming. This claim to world-beating status is therefore not a reliable fact-based statement, and makes it easier to undermine the harms of meat and dairy production.

Claim 3: “Why foist a vegan diet on 25,000 students because a few hundred of them signed a petition?”

‍Fact check: The Shadow Environment Secretary misrepresents how democracy works to question the validity of the vote. She also wrongly equates an institutional transition to default plant-based catering with enforced veganism.

As the democratic process in Southampton dictates, Plant-Based Universities gathered the requisite number of signatures to trigger a vote in the Students’ Union (500) – and then, for good measure, comfortably surpassed that number, securing 950 supporters. Following a democratic debate, the elected delegates voted 12 to 3 in favour of the motion.

Transitioning to a plant-based offering does not mandate that any individual become vegan; it is an institutional decision to favour more sustainable catering. Most universities have climate commitments and sustainable development goals. The University of Southampton, for example, has pledged to reduce scope 3 emissions to “net zero by 2045”, with an interim goal of eliminating 65,940 tonnes of CO2e by 2027/28. Thanks to the efforts of its students, plant-based menus will help give it a chance of meeting this target.

We have contacted Victoria Atkins and are awaiting a response.