When UK consumers are turning away from plant-based meat and dairy alternatives, and as Britain’s farmers face unprecedented challenges, the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations of a 27% cut in UK cattle and sheep numbers by 2040, and a 25% reduction in meat consumption over the same period, seem increasingly divorced from reality. Efforts to reduce and mitigate agricultural emissions should focus first and foremost on encouraging new green technologies and scientific innovations, rather than on imposing measures which might harm economic activity and deter research investment, and whose contribution to reducing emissions on a global scale is likely to be minimal. With British science pioneering many of these innovations, consider the positive impact we could have – as well as the opportunities for economic growth - if UK-based leadership in animal feed technology, genetics, animal health, engineering and data science enables the development of emissions-reducing products, practices and technologies, all capable of being exported and deployed on a worldwide basis, writes East Yorks MP Charlie Dewhirst.             

 

The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change recently hit the headlines with a report calling for a radical reset of climate change policies, describing current strategies as “riven with irrationality” and “distorting the debate into a quest for a climate platform that is unrealistic and therefore unworkable.”

 

I wholeheartedly agree, and nowhere is this more evident than in relation to animal agriculture.

 

With its continued bias against livestock farming and meat-eating, the Seventh Carbon Budget report from the Climate Change Committee (CCC), released in February 2025, seems increasingly divorced from reality. 

 

Because when UK consumers are turning away from plant-based meat and dairy alternatives, and when Britain’s farmers are facing unprecedented challenges, the CCC’s recommendations of a 27% reduction in UK cattle and sheep numbers by 2040, and a 25% cut in meat consumption over the same period, appear startlingly naïve and ill-conceived.  

 

According to research by AHDB, British consumers shunned this year’s ‘Veganuary’, as meat-free products had their fourth consecutive year of decline. Meat and dairy products reigned supreme. And, as plant-based and lab-grown products are increasingly drawn into the ‘Ultra-Processed Foods’ debate, that downward trend could continue.

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

At the same time, Britain’s hard-pressed livestock farmers are unlikely to respond positively to suggestions of mandatory culls, farm closures or de-stocking policies, in the same way as Dutch and Irish producers have vigorously rejected the idea.

 

The significant contribution of livestock (especially ruminant) agriculture to overall greenhouse gas emissions is not in dispute here, nor is the fact that the short-term warming potential of enteric methane is significantly greater than CO2 .

 

But as policymakers we must be mindful of the practical, political and economic realities at play in seeking to develop workable and effective approaches to climate action in relation to agriculture.

 

Because farming is possibly unique in its relationship to climate change, at the same time a major cause, victim and a source of solutions.

 

It is frustrating that the narrative around climate change and agriculture is often negative in tone, and inclined to demonise and penalise livestock production, so diverting attention away from the enormous opportunities for modern farming to contribute positively to the climate agenda.  

   

My starting point is that efforts to reduce and mitigate agricultural emissions should focus first and foremost on encouraging new green technologies and scientific innovations, rather than on imposing measures which might harm economic growth and living standards, and ultimately reduce domestic food production.

 

It is disappointing, therefore, that the Climate Change Committee’s headline recommendations to Government continue to promote such a radical and economically damaging approach to cutting emissions from UK livestock production.

 

Indeed, published alongside the CCC report was a study conducted by Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), identifying no fewer than 29 technologies and innovations with the potential for greenhouse gas abatement, including livestock feed innovations and methane-reducing additives, livestock health, genetics and breeding, robotics and digital technology, handling of waste and manures, and grassland management. 

 

Why were these solutions not more prominently advocated by the CCC as a more progressive pathway to reducing and mitigating UK agriculture’s climate impact? 

 

The UK Government’s response to the CCC’s recommendations could be critical in terms of fostering UK-based R&D, enterprise and investment in the areas identified by SRUC. Because policies which seek to restrict and penalise livestock agriculture are unlikely to stimulate and energise future research activity.

 

Importantly, the path we choose could also have international ramifications. Reducing UK livestock numbers in line with the CCC’s advice would represent a minuscule contribution to emissions reduction on a global scale, with worldwide demand for meat protein projected to double by 2050 in response to population growth and demographic change.

 

But just consider the positive impact we could have – as well as the opportunities for economic growth - if UK-based scientific leadership in genetics, animal health, engineering and data science leads to the development of emissions-reducing products, practices and technologies, all capable of being exported and deployed on a global basis.            

 

As vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture (APPGSTA), I have been privileged to hear about some of these exciting innovations first hand.

 

Britain has some of the most cutting edge, world-leading research taking place in companies, research institutes and university departments across the country.

 

Earlier this year, for example, the All-Party Group heard from Remediiate, a British start-up which has developed the technology to capture and use industrial carbon dioxide emissions to grow protein-rich microalgae as a like-for-like replacement for soymeal in animal feed. Potentially capable of producing 18,000 tonnes of product per year on an area roughly the size of 1.5 football pitches, while consuming hard to abate CO2 emissions at a rate of 100 tonnes per day, the company has already signed a £1 billion take-off deal with a major animal feed producer.

 

We also heard from dsm-firmenich, manufacturers of Bovaer, a methane-reducing feed additive which is proven to reduce enteric methane emissions by about 30% in dairy cows, and by 45% in beef cattle. Bovaer has been approved for use by the UK Food Standards Agency and European Food Safety Authority, and is already available in 68 countries worldwide. We learned that dsm-firmenich has developed extensive partnerships with UK universities and research institutes, and that this was a key factor behind the company’s decision to base its global manufacturing site for Bovaer in the UK, near Glasgow. 

 

And MSD Animal Health, whose livestock sensor technology automatically monitors the health status of various livestock species, allowing early detection of disease, as well as increased productivity and improved reproductive performance. Morbidity and mortality are key contributors to livestock greenhouse gas emissions, and when an estimated 20% of the UK beef herd are not in-calf each year (around 200,000 cows), even small improvements in fertility rates can deliver significant reductions in emissions per kg of beef produced.

 

Alongside these exciting innovations, the All-Party Group has also heard how other countries are tackling the challenge of emissions reduction in agriculture.

 

For example, AgriZeroNZ is a public-private partnership, half-owned by the New Zealand government and half by leading NZ agribusinesses, whose remit is to help the country’s cattle and sheep farmers reduce emissions while maintaining profitability and productivity. It does so by investing in a portfolio of innovative ventures and research projects offering potential solutions to reduce enteric methane and nitrous oxide emissions from ruminant animals, with a laser-like focus on safeguarding the economic contribution of New Zealand farmers.

 

I am convinced that encouraging progressive innovations and initiatives such as this holds the key to more effective climate action in the livestock sector, rather than simply demanding arbitrary reductions in livestock numbers. 

 

Another important take-away from Wayne McNee, chief executive of AgriZeroNZ, who observed that the New Zealand sheep flock has reduced in number by around 70% over the past 40 years from 75 million in the mid-1980s to 22 million today, with little change in the overall volume of lamb produced.

 

This is what agricultural science and innovation can deliver, through improvements in genetics, animal health, and husbandry.    

 

The UK’s Climate Change Committee should take note. 

 

Over the coming months, as the All-Party Group progresses its work programme to deliver on our vision for a 30:50:50 Innovation Agenda for UK Agriculture, and to develop recommendations for government action, our approach will be shaped by the need to maintain a productive, profitable and progressive farming industry, capitalising on Britain’s world-leading strengths in agricultural research and innovation.     

 

Charlie Dewhirst has served as Conservative MP for Bridlington & the Wolds since July 2024. From a pig farming family near Driffield in East Yorkshire, he is a former policy adviser at the National Pig Association. A strong advocate of farming and rural interests in Parliament, Charlie is a member of the House of Commons EFRA Committee and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science & Technology in Agriculture.