Farming and humanity versus the environment | Letters

Guy Smith says it’s unfair to point the finger at farming as the cause of environmental damage, Iain Climie addresses food wastage and Dr Blake Alcott says the most effective way to reduce your carbon footprint is to not reproduce

One fundamental point has been overlooked by Kevin Rushby in his article about the plight of the countryside due to agriculture (The killing fields, G2, 31 May). There has been no intensification of agriculture in the UK for 25 years.

Government statistics show pesticide and fertiliser use has been significantly reduced. There are fewer crops grown and the numbers of pigs, sheep and cattle have fallen. So to point the finger at farming as the cause of environmental degradation through intensification makes no sense, especially when you consider the other changes that have taken place in that time – increased housebuilding, more roads, and more cars on those roads – and the impact they have had on the country’s landscape.

As British farmers we are up for the challenge of improving the way we farm in harmony with wildlife while not decreasing food production. But this will not be achieved through some sort of kneejerk blame game that focuses purely on agriculture rather than the bigger picture about how we are all leading our lives and using Britain’s land.

We should remember here that if British farmers produce less then we as a nation become more dependent on imports for our food needs. These will most likely come from countries where environmental protection gets lower priority.

The British countryside is not a degraded, sterile landscape. It is a rich and beautiful one managed by farmers and much appreciated by most people. I’d urge your reporters to drive through the agricultural heartlands of the US midwest, South America or eastern Europe and report back how they compare with our green and pleasant land.
Guy Smith
Deputy president, National Farmers’ Union

• Industrialised agriculture is often harmful (Industrial-scale beef production is a sign of crisis in our farming, 31 May) but is often claimed to be necessary for food security. Levels of food wastage suggest otherwise.

The IMechE’s Waste Not, Want Not report estimates that at least 30% of global production never reaches shops or markets, while massive waste occurs in shops, restaurants, canteens, homes, outside fast-food stores and on airlines. Wasteful uses of human food include livestock feed, biofuels, alcoholic drinks, cosmetics and even packaging. Add in overeating, excessive cash-crop production and the stampede to cover good land in development, and clearly there is massive scope for both increasing and improving food supplies just by reducing waste, although there are other options. Methane-reducing feed additives for ruminant livestock have existed for decades but not been adopted, even though they often boost growth.
Iain Climie
Whitchurch, Hampshire

• Your report on the study led by Joseph Poore (Avoid meat and dairy to reduce your impact on planet, say scientists, 1 June) is right about everything concerning our production of meat and dairy foods except that by far the single most effective thing you can do to reduce your environmental footprint is to not reproduce. The most recent of many studies showing this, published in 2017 by researchers at Sweden’s Lund University and Canada’s University of British Columbia (Best solution to climate change? Fewer children, 12 July 2017), found that having one fewer child was about 60 times more effective than eating a plant-based diet, 30 times better than avoiding airplane travel and 20 times better than living car-free.

Since the study led by Poore did not rigorously compare the environmental impact of our diet with such other factors, he cannot base his claim that diet is “the single biggest way” for us to lower our footprints on that study. It is not in the interest of either sustainability or quality of life for the Guardian to continue to almost always regard population size as a negligible impact factor. All environmental and animal-welfare problems are much easier to solve at the present human population level – or of course lower – than after the highly likely addition of 2 or 3 billion more people in the next few decades.
Dr Blake Alcott
Istanbul, Turkey

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

Letters

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Cut out meat, pets and kids to save the Earth | Letters
Letters: Readers react to George Monbiot’s article on dropping meat and dairy, news about Sainsbury’s selling vegan ‘fake meats’ , and a report on meat being found in vegan and vegetarian meals

Letters

12, Jun, 2018 @5:13 PM

Article image
Imperfect science of intensive farming | Letters
Letters: Intensive farming does not represent the best use of our agricultural land, says Sue Pritchard

Letters

23, Jul, 2019 @4:51 PM

Article image
Keeping the collapse of civilisation at bay | Letters
Letters: Readers respond to Damian Carrington’s interview with Paul Ehrlich whose book The Population Bomb was published 50 years ago

Letters

27, Mar, 2018 @5:37 PM

Article image
The need for better soil, and fewer people | Letters
Letters: Farmers should be incentivised to switch to nature-friendly farming techniques, writes Graeme Willis of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Meanwhile Melvyn Rust says people should be persuaded to have slightly fewer children

Letters

29, Jan, 2019 @6:29 PM

Article image
Meat, dairy and nurturing the soil | Letters
Letters: Dr Phillip Williamson, Yvonne Ingham and J Peter Greaves respond to Guardian coverage of the IPCC special report on climate change and land

Letters

13, Aug, 2019 @5:30 PM

Article image
Much can be dung to resolve the cow poo problem | Letters
Letters: Readers respond to the news that animal excrement is mucking up the environment

Letters

31, Mar, 2019 @4:51 PM

Article image
Why cutting cattle can’t solve the climate crisis | Letters
Letters: Stuart Roberts, vice-president of the NFU, makes the green case for maintaining cattle grazing in the UK, while Simon Fairlie thinks cutting meat production is a distraction

Letters

17, Dec, 2019 @4:25 PM

Article image
This plant-focused diet won’t save the planet | Letters
Letters: Richard Vernon says population reduction would do more for the planet than a change of diet, Stuart Roberts and John Davies extol the benefits of British farming, Dr Michael Antoniou calls for balanced scientific information and Paul Faupel on meeting his dietary needs with chocolate-enrobed brazil nuts

Letters

18, Jan, 2019 @4:13 PM

Article image
Can lab-grown food save the planet? | Letters
Letters: Daniel Pryor of the Adam Smith Institute, David E Hanke, Georgina Ferry and Prof Mick Watson respond to an article by George Monbiot claiming that lab-grown food will end farming and save the planet

Letters

09, Jan, 2020 @7:14 PM

Article image
Coastal flooding and peat bogs | Letters
Letters: More than 15,000 buildings were built in coastal areas at significant risk of coastal flooding in the UK between 2005 and 2014, write Tom Spencer and Gerd Masselink. Meanwhile Alastair Edwards says the Irish shouldn’t be bashed too much over their carbon emissions, but Dr John Doherty warns against erecting wind turbines on bogland

Letters

28, Nov, 2018 @5:34 PM