Meat has been and continues to be an important food source, delivering a wide range of valuable nutrients our bodies can easily absorb.

Along with other animal-source foods like fish, eggs and milk, it also plays an important role in several European cultural traditions and recipes. People are biologically adapted to a diet that includes meat, which is important in a healthy and balanced diet. Some nutrients in meat and other animal-source foods are not always easily obtained or obtainable from plant-based foods.

Meat is an excellent source of vitamins, minerals, and essential micronutrients the body can absorb easily. A 100g portion of red meat, for example, will provide around 25% of the recommended daily allowance for riboflavin, niacin, vitamins B5 and B6, and two-thirds for vitamin B12. Diets poor in animal-source foods can lead to various nutritional deficiencies. Studies have shown that low-meat diets may risk brain and reproductive system development. Indeed, it is recognised that animal-source foods are essential in an infant’s first 1,000 days of life and for the skeleton and brain development of pre-adolescents.

There are several important bioactive compounds in meat and processed meat products, such as vitamin B1, iron, zinc, choline, L-carnitine, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), glutathione, taurine and creatine, which have been studied for their physiological properties. Conjugated linoleic acid, for example, has drawn significant attention in the last two decades for its biologically beneficial effects. CLA modulates immune and inflammatory responses and improves bone mass, while carnosine possesses strong antioxidant and anti-genotoxic activities, including the anti-ageing of cells.

From an evolutionary perspective, we have developed as omnivores, and meat has been a central component of our diet for millions of years. Claims about the health dangers of meat are not only improbable in the light of our evolutionary history, but they are also far from being supported by robust scientific evidence. The majority of evidence linking red and processed meat consumption with colorectal cancer and pathologies is observational and based on intakes of red and processed meat that exceed most European countries’ average intakes.

Interestingly, a study in the UK found similar rates of bowel/colorectal cancer in vegetarians and meat-eaters, suggesting that meat consumption in general isn’t a major cause of this disease. The correlation between food, meats and cancer is very difficult to study because there are many elements, real or perceived, that may favour the onset and the development of cancer. National authorities have based recommendations on the studies developed by the International Agency for Research Studies on Cancer (IARC) that highlight and classify the considered agents that are certainly or presumably responsible for cancer onset.

“Carcinogenic” is the term given to something that can cause cancer. The problem, in terms of communication to the public, is in the verb “to cause”. It is not possible to give a determined cause-effect interpretation in this instance. In other words, it is not possible to say, “If you eat processed meat, then you will surely get colorectal cancer”. In the same way, it is not possible to say that if someone is exposed to a carcinogenic agent, they will certainly get cancer. Scientists hold to the premise that “carcinogenic” is something that, taken in certain doses and for a certain period, can increase the risk of developing a certain type of cancer throughout life. However, when such information is shared with the general public, the interpretation is often that if a substance or a food is carcinogenic, it most certainly causes cancer.

A consequence of this miscommunication is that some people will believe that if we do not eat a specific food or something with a carcinogenic substance, then surely we are safe from cancer. Unfortunately, this is not true. We may get, and statistically it happens, lung cancer even if we do not smoke and colon cancer even if we are strictly vegan. No one can say with certainty whether, even eating processed meat every single day, we will get colorectal cancer or not. But this does not mean that eating a certain food or not eating it would expose someone to the same risk.

Going back to the IARC monography, the various agents are not classified based on how carcinogenic they are, nor does the report deal with estimating the risk, individual or collective, of an exposure to a given agent once established to be carcinogenic. This means it is incorrect to treat all carcinogenic agents in the same way. Stating that “processed meat is like smoking or asbestos” is deeply wrong, and certainly, it pays no service to public opinion or knowledge. Carcinogenic agents are different, but it is not the IARC’s task to classify this aspect. There is also an interesting point regarding the consumption amounts investigated by the IARC, which are 50 grammes of processed meat or 100 red meat per day. This level of consumption is much higher than that of European consumers and, in general, of the rest of the world. For all these reasons, meat and processed meat products can be safely consumed as a part of healthy and balanced diets, but the most important thing for authorities to keep in mind is to communicate these concepts clearly and properly.

A group of Iranian scientists have developed a method for processing lignocellulosic waste into nitrogen-rich animal feed. They claimed that this is the first-of-its-kind technology in the global feed industry. Around 21.5 million tons of lignocellulosic residues from straw are produced per year in Iran, Dr Kian Mehr, one of the chief researchers, said. These are inexpensive and abundant sources of fibre, though their use in the feed industry traditionally has been limited by low digestibility. Solving this issue has tremendous practical importance for Iran, which currently heavily depends on the import of feedstuff.

The scientists said they used nitrogen enrichment and oxidation to improve the digestibility of lignocellulosic biomass, though no additional details have been provided. A series of preliminary trials have shown that the biomass processed using the developed technology, when added to the cattle feed, also lowers methane emissions by a solid 67%. The processing takes little time, requires ambient temperature and pressure, and can be used on a wide range of biomass in a solid state without a need to recover chemicals in advance, Dr Mehr stated, speaking about the upsides of the developed method. In addition, it is almost waste-free and is not associated with the generation of any toxic by-products. The lignocellulosic waste is also good for the production of feed pellets, thanks to the high content of lignin, which is used as a natural binder. In theory, the scientists, said using lignocellulosic waste as a feed component feed manufacturers could save money on energy costs, and require less binders. On the other hand, it looks like the technology is relatively far from commercialisation. So far, the lignocellulosic waste processing has taken place only in laboratory conditions. The researchers believe they still have to shape up their method before it could be offered for mass production.

Rabobank, assessing the impact of the conflict in Israel on food, energy, and fertilizer trends, says that if it is contained to the Israel and Gaza region it may not move the needle too much for energy, commodity or livestock prices. Mike Every, Rabobank’s global strategist and geopolitics expert, and Stefan Vogel, general manager RaboResearch for Australia and New Zealand, discussed the current situation in the Middle East and its potential impact for farmers in a podcast this week. If Israel moves into Gaza, and initiates a ground offensive, there is a very high probability that the Iranian backed and funded militia, Hezbollah, based in south Lebanon, would open fire on Israel and start a two-front war (these two steps have already been taken – ed.). And were that to happen, it is extremely likely that other Iranian backed forces such as militias in Yemen, in Iraq, and in Syria would also move towards the border and open fire with whatever missile forces they have. [In such a scenario] it is naive to think Iran would not press other buttons it has available at its disposal which would include trying to whip up an uprising in the West Bank and potentially even amongst Israeli Arabs.

Eventually, the conflict could spread even further, developing into a broad regional war with no easy resolution on top of the world’s major energy reserves. Oil and diesel prices would soar in such an escalation of the conflict, with oil potentially rising to $150 per barrel. “In a nutshell, if we get into that scenario, it is akin to what we saw in the 1970s after the Yom Kippur war when the Arab economies decided to restrict flows of oil to the US, and then again in 1979 after we had the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis, when Iran did the same thing. The economic effects would be deep, biting and felt worldwide,” warned Every.

The geopolitical expert is worried about the propensity for the dominos to topple much quicker than commentators are currently predicting, as fear about security in Israel is climbing rapidly. He also outlined how there may be an incentive for other global powers such as China and Russia to support Iran and try and humiliate the US and Israel in the Middle East region, keep them bogged down in a big war, distract the US from Ukraine and also from its military build-up in East Asia to protect Taiwan. “This is not a forecast, but it is a worryingly logical set of events which, if they were to transpire, would happen faster than you think.” The implications, evidently, of such escalation of the war for the food, agriculture, and energy markets would be quite devastating.

In a groundbreaking achievement, scientists, led by University of Nebraska–Lincoln researcher James Schnable, have successfully mapped the complete genome of corn. This milestone development promises to revolutionize the future of agriculture, offering invaluable insights into crop health, resilience, and productivity. Published recently in the prestigious journal Nature Genetics, the study represents a significant leap forward in the field of genetics, coming on the heels of the human genome’s complete mapping just a year ago. The corn genome, due to its sheer size and complexity, has long posed a formidable challenge for scientists seeking to decode its genetic makeup.

Over the years, technology has made strides in this area, with the first draft of the corn genome emerging in 2009. However, numerous gaps remained, comprising over 100,000 unresolved genetic sequences. James Schnable, the Charles O. Gardner Professor of Agronomy, explained, “Our team drew on the latest technology, plus the particular expertise of the individual team members, and that finally made possible the mapping of the complete corn genome.” A significant aspect of this achievement was the resolution of complex genetic regions containing nearly identical paralogs – genes that are so similar they were previously indistinguishable. Corn’s genetic repetition presents an extraordinary challenge, with vast stretches of genetic material intermingled, making it difficult to pinpoint individual gene functions.

The fully sequenced corn genome holds immense potential for developing improved corn varieties by enhancing the understanding of how genetic differences influence traits. Schnable explained, “Rather than conducting selection, we will have the potential to design and engineer corn varieties to adapt to changing climates and grow in more nitrogen-limited conditions.” Now that the corn genome is fully sequenced, scientists can embark on essential follow-up research to study and understand the function of individual genes previously unidentified. Schnable emphasized the university’s advantage in this endeavor, given its robust research and Extension network and the ability to grow corn varieties across a wide range of environments.

Results published in the European Soy Monitor 2021, points to 40% of soybean meal equivalent of total European soy consumption to be sourced according to the FEFAC Soy Sourcing guidelines and 24% certified deforestation-free soy. The report also refers to FEFAC’s initial risk assessment which estimates that just under 94% of EU soy imports were sourced from low-deforestation regions, based on EU trade statistics and industry expert assessments. The figures show good progress continues to be made. Since the publication of the first European Soy Monitor of 2018 estimations, the provisional data for 2021 indicates that FEFAC members reported an increase of 21% over the past 3 years. However, the 40% figure was slightly lower than the 43.8% recorded in 2020. Pedro Cordero, FEFAC president, welcomed the latest figures: “I am pleased with the continued positive trend that the European feed sector and its supply chain partners have been able to display as regards the industry’s use of responsible soy. FEFAC’s internal estimates indicate that a significant part of soy used in the EU in 2021 came from regions with low deforestation risk, including the EU, United States, Canada and Ukraine. These sources are considered “deforestation-free”, although not officially certified as such. The soybean trade itself has remained relatively unaffected. Brazil and the United States continue to be the world’s biggest producers and China by far the biggest soy consuming country. European soy production increased from 2.68m tonnes in 2020 to 2.71m in 2021.