The second instalment of the BBC’s Horizon, Should I Eat Meat? How to Feed The Planet, assessed the environmental impact of livestock farming. Doctor Michael Mosley examined which meats we should eat if we want to be eco-friendly carnivores.
Travelling to the US Mosley spent time on the prairies of the Flint Hills in Kansas, as well as a feedyard where cattle were fed on a mixture of corn, fat, growth hormones and antibiotics.
Mosley said studies had shown that meat produced in a more intensive way produces up 40% less methane than grass-fed cattle, however the issue of animal welfare then raises its ugly head.
Ultimately Mosley concluded the most environmentally friendly method of eating meat, was to eat less, and to consume alternative animal proteins such as mussels, which he highlighted as having a low carbon footprint.
However, it was the first programme in the series - The Big Health Dilemma - which caused the biggest stir for the UK industry. Mosley embarked on a "high-meat" diet, which saw his red-meat consumption increase to 130 grams a day, 60g more than the 70g recommended daily allowance in the UK.
Commenting on the Horizon series, Dr Carrie Ruxton from the British Meat Advisory Panel (MAP), said: "While the Horizon programme recognised and emphasised the nutritional benefits of red meat and the important role it plays in our diet, the high-meat diet test wasn’t properly conducted and, therefore, is not a fair comparison."
Meanwhile, Roger Leicester, also a member of the MAP and a surgeon and bowel cancer specialist, criticised the study Mosley investigated: "In terms of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study, which was mentioned in the Horizon programme, this study is an analysis of dietary intakes of meat assessed by questionnaires, which is an unreliable research method. In fact, other studies have found no association between red meat and cancer[2], and rates of bowel cancer are similar in meat-eaters and vegetarians."
In its official response to the series, MAP suggested such "scaremongering" programmes could have a negative impact on those in society who require more protein in their diet, especially women in the UK, of whom, Ruxton reported, only one in 10 eat the recommended 70g.
This was echoed by the English beef and lamb levy board Eblex, which suggested that media reports on meat consumption should be taken in "moderation". It said: "No doubt, the sensationalist stories suggesting that various food types cause various illnesses and cancers will continue. Perhaps the headlines should be taken in moderation too."