Subscribe
The shift to alternative proteins is driven by the goal of 'saving the planet' through adopting 'sustainable diets' to mitigate the effects of industrial livestock systems. Generally, three types of foods are seen as possible substitutes for animal-based products: (a) plant-based alternatives such as meat substitutes, (b) lab-produced cultured meat, milk, and egg products, and (c) edible insects. In India, there are around 70 smart protein companies registered.
Ironically, current discussions emphasise minimising or even eliminating most livestock systems, regardless of their local socio-environmental importance. What is the broader perspective here? Are all livestock systems as detrimental as industrialized ones? How can we incorporate justice aspects into the transition to alternative proteins in India?
The dominant narrative that (all) livestock is bad for the planet ignores important aspects of non-industrial livestock systems such as traditional and small-scale livestock keeping. The main problem with discussions about the shift to alternative proteins is the focus on what (product transition) needs to change rather than how (process transition) we should implement the change.
Lack of scrutiny of alternative proteins: The environmental impact and greenhouse gas emissions of alternative protein production have not been examined as closely as those of livestock farming, particularly in terms of raw material procurement, production, processing and transportation. It's important to understand the hidden and displaced effects of alternative protein production through teleconnectedness.
Soy, for instance, is a key ingredient in animal feed for both industrial livestock and alternative proteins like meat and dairy substitutes. The extensive deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon for soy production for Western animal feed has been heavily scrutinised, whereas similar scrutiny is lacking in discussions on alternative protein transitions.
This doesn't imply that all alternative proteins are environmentally harmful. Both livestock systems and alternative protein sources are diverse, meaning their environmental impacts can vary. Therefore, it's simplistic to label all livestock as harmful or all alternative proteins as beneficial for the environment.
Simplistic binary categorisation exacerbating social injustices: Livestock plays a crucial role in nutrition across various local and socio-cultural settings. In India, livestock ownership is mostly household-based, particularly among marginal and small-scale farmers. Both rural and urban regions in India frequently practice backyard poultry and goat rearing for nutritional and supplementary income purposes.
The country's small-scale, decentralised cattle systems operate under low-intensity production. Considering India's significant issues with poverty and malnutrition, especially in disadvantaged communities, what would be the impact of a substantial decrease in animal-sourced food?
When alternative protein narratives attempt to simplify by viewing livestock as a homogenous system (mainly intensive production), they diminish the importance of small-scale livestock systems for livelihood and nutrition in various socio-cultural contexts.
This approach also establishes a binary of 'good food' and 'bad food' consumers, distinguishing between those who contribute to climate change and those who strive to protect the planet. This socially constructed division, based solely on livestock's greenhouse gas emissions, has significant implications for worsening food-related social inequality and injustice, particularly in India.
Aggregated emission data and ignoring the diversity of livestock systems: Global discussions on climate actions are influenced by the approaches taken to measure and interpret carbon emissions. Scholars have pointed out that global methane emission assessments fail to distinguish between different livestock systems and tend to combine emissions from all types of livestock systems. Is it justifiable to compare emissions from industrial livestock systems, which are resource-intensive, with those from small-scale and extensive systems that use relatively fewer resources? Furthermore, there is contention over the use of emission data from respiration chamber experiments conducted in North America and Europe for small-scale and extensive livestock systems globally.
Although science is intended to be universal, past experiences indicate that overlooking local specificities in scientific interventions can lead to unintended outcomes. Nonetheless, the imperialist tendencies in scientific practice often disregard local customs, thereby limiting the diversity of practices and knowledge systems. Hence, it is important to consider what data should inform local decision-making on climate change. A key question to ask is how we can democratise scientific research to address global issues through local actions.
Ignoring livestock as socio-ecological systems: Considering that India boasts the highest number of livestock animals globally, how should we frame India's varied livestock systems within the context of climate and sustainability discussions? This largely hinges on how we balance the overall advantages and drawbacks, a complex issue that often allows for differing interpretations depending on one's perspective.
The roles of small-scale, decentralised and extensive livestock systems are diverse. These roles include providing a source of livelihood and extra income, combating poverty, ensuring food and nutrition security (particularly in vulnerable communities), preserving indigenous livestock biodiversity, safeguarding local and indigenous knowledge, and supporting circular food systems (such as backyard livestock rearing, integrated crop-livestock systems, or the mutual dependence of inputs from crop and livestock farming). The benefits of these livestock systems, however, differ based on the specific context.
Global discussions tend to adopt a reductionist approach, limiting the scope of discussions on livestock to mere GHG emissions and climate change and ignoring the larger picture. The current shift towards alternative proteins in India largely mirrors a reductionist perspective.
Additionally, traditional and extensive practices in grasslands and uplands hold significant value for ecosystem conservation in many nations, including India. Shifting from livestock to alternative protein diets in these ecosystems will impact their ecology. Hence, advocating for alternative protein transition without accounting for the broader socio-ecological benefits of diverse livestock systems could result in new socio-environmental issues.
Entry points for just transitions in alternative protein transition debates
There are three avenues to consider how livestock needs to be perceived in the debates of alternative protein transitions in the Indian context.
First, the narratives have to extend beyond the scope of industrial livestock systems. The diversity of livestock systems and their local dynamics deserves proper consideration in the alternative protein debates.
Second, the narratives must recognise that non-industrial livestock is more than just a commodity. An oversimplistic narrative of livestock being bad is misleading and ignorant of the ground realities.
Third, using global science for local actions has limitations in terms of being socially just and inclusive. Science must be democratised to incorporate local specificities and plural knowledge systems of livestock keeping in its processes.
Alternative protein transition has multifaceted implications for India, a country dominated by decentralised small-scale livestock systems. This moment is pivotal for a just transition, as it could worsen current social inequalities and hierarchies if not thoughtfully planned. Thus, incorporating justice perspectives into discussions about the transition to alternative proteins is crucial to ensure the process is fair, inclusive and equitable.
Anita Pinheiro is an independent researcher.
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth.