Meat matters-making the case for a valuable food in a hostile environment.

Contemporary views on meat reflect an ambiguous status of appreciation and rejection, especially
in the urbanised West, and tend to come with strong moral overtones. The portrayal of
(red) meat as an intrinsically harmful food choice by certain academics, non-governmental
organisations, mass media, and public-private partnerships contributes to this tension. Although
most of these voices are merely calling for a moderation of the consumption of meat in areas
with high intake, others are radical and demand a drastic reduction or even elimination, as will
be documented in this article. Some scientists are beginning to articulate their concern about
an ongoing trend towards unbalanced communications and anti-meat militancy in both academic
and policy circles. The perceived threat is not only that the vilification of meat may add
to the ongoing moralisation of dietary choices and societal polarisation, but also that it may further
undermine an already precarious situation of public health and a fragile food system, especially
(but not only) in the Global South. Minimising livestock may also come with unintended
harmful effects on ecosystems and livelihoods. The ‘Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the
Societal Role of Livestock’, issued in October 2022, exemplifies such concern. Together with the
body of evidence to which it refers, the Dublin Declaration is to be read as a petition for pragmatism,
demanding sufficiently high standards of evidence, and more respect for the principle
of caution when it comes to policies that have the intention to severely challenge the role of
meat and other animal source foods in future diets.