In a commentary published in Nature Food, the researchers respond to the framework presented by a group of researchers in the form of the Dublin Declaration. They argue that the Declaration fails to take into account the public health risks associated with industrial livestock farming. For example, three out of four emerging diseases currently come from animals, and two-thirds of all antibiotics are administered to farm animals. This contributes to antibiotic resistance that affects both humans and animals.
Environmental impact
The authors also argue that while animal foods can provide essential nutrients, as described in the Dublin Declaration, these nutrients can also be obtained from plants, fortified products and supplements. These products tend to have a lower environmental impact and fewer health disadvantages.
According to the authors, a global increase in livestock production will lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions. They advocate for agroecological systems that involve less intensive livestock production. Although livestock numbers in low-income countries could increase, global livestock numbers do need to decrease.
Reducing industrial livestock production
The Dublin Declaration makes a case for increasing total livestock production by appealing to agroecology and the role of livestock in low-income regions. ‘However, this focus on a minority of the total global livestock fails to acknowledge the large body of evidence supporting the human health, environmental and socioeconomic costs arising from industrial livestock production and animal-sourced food consumption in high income regions,’ the researchers write in their commentary. ‘We must acknowledge the complexity of the challenges associated with livestock production at global scale – and the urgency of reducing industrial livestock production in high-income countries.’