There is enough food for everyone, says Chrissie Hynde – if everyone takes only their fair share and stops eating animals. Others suggest improving farming production methods, tackling population growth and taxing meat

Although I strongly agree with and appreciate George Monbiot’s efforts to shed light on the destructive nature of industrialised farming and its effects on animals and environment (We can’t go on eating like this, 11 December), I do not see the wisdom of tarring the entire farming community with the same brush.

Small family farms, where the profits are just enough to sustain the running of the farm, actually replenish the environment and provide for local communities. A non-slaughter farm is humane, realistic and beneficial all around. We need farmers. There is enough food for everyone if everyone takes only their fair share and stops killing and eating the animals.

To read Monbiot, one would think there is no alternative (other than vegan) to industrialised, factory farming, ie the meat industry, which I so strongly disagree with that I have gone to jail to protest against it.

I am sad to see well-meaning people like Monbiot give farmers an even harder chance to improve their lot. To make cows seem like culprits is truly tragic.

Where would all the farm animals go? To farm animal sanctuaries? Highly unrealistic.

My vision is that animal sanctuaries and farms should be one and the same thing.

How about promoting small non-slaughter farms and leading people to something truly forward thinking? With all the statistics Monbiot quotes, it’s no wonder he can’t sleep at night. By stopping the killing, all of those statistics would be relegated to history.

Small family farms where no member gets killed. Let that thought soothe you to sleep tonight, George.

Chrissie Hynde

London

Mass starvation is humanity’s fate if we keep flogging the land to death | George Monbiot Read more

• Much of what George Monbiot says was true some years ago, but there have been positive developments in world food production.

Fish farming is rapidly overhauling fish catching as more efficient and sustainable: output more than doubled between 2000 and 2015, while catching declined.

Most of today’s beef is produced using concentrates, but developing improved grasses and legumes will allow cattle to be finished for slaughter without recourse to concentrates at all.

Yes, there are areas with serious deterioration in soil quality, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, south-east Asia, north China and the Pampas. However, a recent FAO survey of 23 years of global data concluded that although about 20% of crop land (arable plus permanent crops) is degrading, almost the same proportion is improving.

And the gradual decline in subsidies and international trade barriers is correcting global resource misallocation, where the wrong crops are often grown in the wrong countries and by the least efficient farmers. The evidence to date suggests that this, in conjunction with technological improvements, has significantly increased our chances of being able to feed the 10-11 billion global population expected by 2050.

Rod Parker

London

• George Monbiot discusses the problem of feeding the world at length and thoroughly, but one thing he accepts as if it was a given that we can do nothing about: population growth.

Norman Burlaug, who instigated the first green revolution, said in his 1970 Nobel peace prize lecture: ‘‘If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for … the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed: otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only.” Human numbers are growing at about a billion every 12 years: how can that not be relevant?

Roger Plenty

Stroud, Gloucestershire

• I agree with George Monbiot that we must move to eating more plant-based foods. He says we must also stop the use of farm land to produce biofuels and I agree with that too. What he doesn’t mention is the use of agricultural land to provide energy by means of solar panels. Surely we should ensure farmers are paid enough for the food they grow that they are not tempted to create solar farms? There are still plenty more buildings where the panels could be placed instead.

Janet Poliakoff

Nottingham

• George Monbiot points out that livestock farming produces far fewer calories per hectare than crop farming. Livestock grazing accounts for almost two-thirds of agricultural land in the UK. Monbiot concedes that most of this cannot be used for crops, but seems to suggest that it should be used as a kind of nature reserve. This would result in livestock farming land producing no calories at all. How would this help world food production?

David Robertson

London

• George Monbiot seems to overlook the fact that we have not evolved as herbivores, we are omnivores and “artificial meat” is unlikely to ever be a success. Second, population control, a combined effort by governments and churches, could achieve much in reducing population growth. Not a good prospect either way but probably more practical than trying to overturn the enormous vested and private interests in global agricultural systems.

Dr Bruce Vivash Jones

Cirencester, Gloucestershire

• From climate change to heart disease, there’s no question that diets high in animal products cause harm to the health of the public and the planet. However, taxing citizens for their carnivorous appetites puts the financial burden in the wrong place (Meat industry heading towards ‘sin tax’ along lines of tobacco, 11 December).

Meat tax ‘inevitable’ to beat climate and health crises, says report Read more

Taxpayers in the US already bear the burden as the government subsidises the meat and diary industry many times over. We pay for meat producers to pollute our environment while they get away with ridiculously cheap grazing fees. We pay again in grocery stores for these products, putting ourselves at risk of disease, food contamination and antibiotic resistance. And we pay a third time when the government props up the industry, like $20m forked out by the US federal government in 2016 to buy surplus cheese.

Those who produce our food must be responsible for the means of production, not those who eat it. The solution is not more taxes on consumers. The solution is for policymakers to stop bailing out a failing industry and instead allow the industry to respond to market pressures demanding healthier, more sustainable food.

Jennifer Molidor

Redding, California, USA

• According to the journal Nature, compared to legumes such as soy and peas, even the most efficient meat causes 40 times as much climate change per calorie of protein. Furthermore, a review by the UK government found that the threat from deadly new drug-resistant disease strains – which are driven by antibiotic use on filthy factory farms – is more certain than that from climate change.

Governments will need a way to pay for these mounting harms. A tax on meat seems inevitable unless we shift toward better means of production. For example, plant-based and clean meat (cultured meat) have all the benefits of animal protein without degrading the environment or inhibiting our ability to use antibiotics.



Matt Ball



The Good Food Institute, Washington DC, USA

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters