The Südwestdeutsche Rundfunk is boasting a knowledge video about meat - and has apparently adopted false claims from NGO circles without research. A fact check for the "SWR fact check".
Just a few days ago, public television shone with an opinion piece full of false and distorted statements. With his one-sided view of the wolf problem in Germany, Hannes Jaenicke generously delivered ammunition to the grazing animal owners affected.
The fact that the ARD broadcasters can do this just as well is proven by the Südwestdeutsche Rundfunk (SWR3) in its online series "fact check". It will be clarified whether eating meat is actually a climate sin, promises moderator Dr. Philip Häusser at the beginning of the program: "We don't want to convert anyone or represent other opinions stupidly. Our job is to check facts, and in such a way that everyone can form their own opinion."
After exactly 1:33 min it is clear: this promise fails because of its claims. Or how else could such absurd claims as: "90 percent of all mammals on our earth live to be slaughtered"? The current number of mice in southwest Australia alone is likely to outnumber all cattle, sheep and pigs worldwide.
25 kg of grain for 1 kg of meat or: How to feed cattle to death
What follows is mainly known from various NGO publications: One kilogram of beef consumes up to 25 kg of grain and 25,000 l of water before it ends up on our plates, explains Häusser. Unfortunately, the “fact checkers” did not find it necessary to check these “facts” for plausibility. So let's do it: With an average meat approach of 1 kg per day of life, a beef cattle would have to eat 25 kg of grain every day - on average, either start this diet as a newborn calf or as a large bull then cut at least twice as much. Anyone who has ever dealt with a diet suitable for ruminants knows that the poor cattle would perish miserably after a few days.
The right facts from the right sources
How the broadcast producers get this number can be guessed by looking at the sources that are neatly linked under the video. A good third of the 25 German-language references come from NGOs and environmental foundations. There are also TV channels and formats such as Deutsche Welle or Quarks. Another third are provided by the Federal Environment Agency and the Ministry of the Environment. The only agricultural source: the Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food, which was only allowed to contribute figures on the meat market and not on animal nutrition. With this expert selection, of course, nobody stumbles over the stupid fantasy figure.
Rainwater does not disappear in the cow
When it comes to water, too, you could have asked someone who knows what to do, instead of brushing off what BUND, WWF and Co. are chewing in advance - or even eagerly outbid their information. Because even the Albert Schweitzer Foundation, which otherwise likes to reach impressive figures, only speaks of 15,400 and not of 25,000 l. But whatever amount you want to use: It always consists for the most part of so-called "green water". That is, from precipitation that falls on the areas where cattle graze or where their forage grows. This water is not taken from the ground and surface water system, but on the contrary fills it. And it allows plants to grow - especially on soils that are unsuitable or poorly suited for the production of human food. According to the Water Footprint Network, this “green water” accounts for around 94 percent of the water used in cattle farming. In the case of the “fact checkers”, the number 25,000 simply remains uncommented and gives viewers the impression, whether intentional or not, that vast amounts of treated drinking water are simply “disappearing” in the cow.
Rainforest deforestation only for the benefit of the meat eaters?
It continues in this style of targeted half-information. Key point rainforest: In Brazil, moderator Häusser explains, 11,000 km² of rainforest were cleared within one year. And adds meaningfully: "However, we cannot say whether these areas have now really been completely used for animal husbandry or the cultivation of animal feed." Well, Mr. Häusser, others can do that. The answer is simple and simple: no. Rainforests are being cleared for a variety of reasons, cattle farming and soybean cultivation (the latter of course not only for feed, but above all for oil production) are two of them. But it is also about tropical wood, palm oil, mineral resources, infrastructure construction and much more. There are numerous sources on this subject that “fact check” certainly knows. But as it is said and emphasized in the video, the impression remains that every felled rainforest tree is actually the responsibility of steak lovers.
Instead of 50 only 15 percent greenhouse gas share
So that we understand each other correctly: our diet undoubtedly has a major impact on the climate and the environment. Therefore, meat consumption should also be viewed critically. But not distorted and one-sided, because that doesn't help anyone, especially not the climate. In the end, Häusser tries again with a touch of objectivity and again refers to a study that he quoted at the beginning of the program in such a way that nobody wanted to seriously question its results: The World Watch Institute published results after 50 Percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions can be traced back to animal husbandry. This number, admits the moderator, is probably too high . Other sources only assumed 15 percent. So why does he quote this - and only this - study at the beginning of his broadcast?
All prejudices clearly confirmed
Only those who have lasted almost to the end of the 11-minute video can take this new insight home with them. The less patient will remember the statement from the start: livestock farming is responsible for half of all greenhouse gases. But even the 15 percent that remained in the room at the end should have been commented on during a real fact check, because of course a plant-based substitute for animal food would also emit CO₂ , from other points such as the energy- and emission-intensive mineral fertilizer production and the question of use not to speak of absolute grassland. But as the presenter, who has a doctorate in computer science, says at the end of the program: “It was more or less clear to me beforehand that meat is not so great for the climate.” Scientists who approach a question in this way will get the desired result. Which was to be proved.
Comentários