Scientists from various fields have been studying the impact of cattle farming on global warming for years. Their research indicates that mass beef production has a negative effect on greenhouse gas production. It's estimated that an adult cow generates up to two tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. Environmentalists and advocates of a vegetarian diet are using these findings to encourage people to stop consuming beef and using cowhide leather in the shoe and leather goods industry.

Agriculture is responsible for approximately 23% of greenhouse gas emissions. The primary contributor to global warming is cattle farming, specifically the methane cows produce in the form of manure. The significant increase in meat production, up to 39% in the first two decades of this century, led to a 14% rise in agricultural emissions.

One of the UN's flagship reports deals with the impact of cattle farming on global warming. Now, however, two experts cited in the report are calling for its retraction. The scientists insist that the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) misused their research to underestimate the potential of reducing meat consumption to cut agricultural emissions, The Guardian reports.

The UN is accused by Paul Behrens, associate professor at Leiden University, and Matthew Hayek, assistant professor at New York University. The researchers accuse the FAO report of poor framing of the topic, systematic errors and highly inappropriate use of source data.

In an interview with The Guardian, Hayek said: "The FAO’s errors were multiple, egregious, conceptual, and all had the consequence of reducing the emissions mitigation possibilities from dietary change far below what they should be. None of the mistakes had the opposite effect."

"The scientific consensus at the moment is that dietary shifts are the biggest leverage we have to reduce emissions and other damage caused by our food system," Paul Behrens told the Guardian. "But the FAO chose the roughest and most inappropriate approach to their estimates and framed it in a way that was very useful for interest groups seeking to show that plant-based diets have a small mitigation potential compared to alternatives."

Matthew Hayek said that the FAO had inappropriately cited scientists' findings. The report on which the UN based its study measured all agri-food emissions, but the UN applied it to livestock emissions alone.

"It wasn’t just like comparing apples to oranges," he said. "It was like comparing really small apples to really big oranges."

In a statement sent to The Guardian, an FAO spokesperson wrote: "As a knowledge-based organisation, FAO is fully committed to ensuring accuracy and integrity in scientific publications, especially given the significant implications for policymaking and public understanding.

"We would like to assure you that the report in question has undergone a rigorous review process with both an internal and external double-blind peer review to ensure that the research meets the highest standards of quality and accuracy and that potential biases are minimised. FAO will look into the issues raised by the academics and undertake a technical exchange of views with them."

Source: The Guardian