其他工業國家的情況也是一樣，隨之而來的不僅是肥胖率的增高，癌癥和心臟病的發病率也在不斷攀升。通常來說，每人每天食用紅肉或加工肉制品的總量應不超過70克，相當于一小份漢堡的量。

不同于西方國家，中國的肉類消費水平相對較低。中國人平均每天的肉類消費僅比健康標準高1.5倍。但考慮到文化、經濟和地域等因素的差異，僅用這一數值來衡量整個國家的水平還是過于簡單化。

肉類及加工肉制品消費增加的同時，運動量卻在減少，使得現今中國的超重人口比營養不良人口多了一倍。中國國內消費和出口的肉制品產量也在不斷攀升，從1978年的850萬噸增長至2011年的7950萬噸，年均增長率達6.93%。到目前為止，促進肉類消費仍是政府的一項國策。

畜牧養殖業的二氧化碳排放占全球二氧化碳排放總量的15%，同運輸業尾氣排放量相當。然而，卻很少有人了解飲食與氣候變化之間的聯系。政府擔心干預人們的飲食會引起公眾的強烈反對，因而在探討氣候變化的解決方案時，政府從不會將重點放在減少肉類消費上。今日新發布的一份報告指出，必須糾正這一做法。但這并不是要求人們以后都只吃素食，而是讓人們向健康的飲食習慣靠攏，向肉類健康消費標準看齊。

查塔姆研究所在研究過程中，曾在12個國家進行了網上調查，還分別在中國、巴西、英國和美國這四個國家成立了四個深入調查小組，探究政府為扭轉公眾行為所采取的措施。同時，他們的調查還發現，雖然所有接受調查的人都認為改變人們的飲食習慣存在著很大的難度，但不同國家的人對肉類食品的態度不同。

鑒于中國肉類消費水平較低，經濟起步較晚這一狀況，接受調查的中國人都認為要求他們減少肉食攝入是“不公平的”，其中一人甚至說到，“政府不會那么糊涂（到讓人們改變飲食習慣）。”這些事實反應出，肉類消費在中國和巴西其實是代表了社會和經濟的進步，越富有的人對肉類食品的需求就越大。

肉類對氣候變化的影響并未受到中國政府的重視。人們對此也知之甚微，很少會將二者聯系在一起。雖然參與調查的中國人對此的了解少于其他國家，但當相關數據擺在他們面前時，中國人對改變飲食結構的接受度卻更高。究其原因，一部分可能與城市居民的“生活體驗”相關，人們將嚴重的大氣污染同氣候變化聯系在一起，因此愿意從個人做起減少污染。同時，這也反應出了中國人對于權威和科學的十足信任。

重要的是，在上述這四個國家中，接受調查的人都說，如果政府出臺新政，鼓勵人們改變飲食習慣，最初反對之聲會慢慢減弱，越來越多的人將愿意去適應變化。人們對禁煙令等公共健康干預政策的態度都經過了相似的變化過程。因此，若政府認為改變公眾飲食習慣太過困難，那就大錯特錯了。

中國還具備一個十分有力的條件，那就是傳統的飲食習慣本身就以蔬菜和谷物為主，倡導減少肉類食用，因而實現肉食與蔬菜的均衡攝入并非難事。在中國，有不少食品可以替代肉類和奶制品。為了治療貧血，中國還曾向食品中添加過鐵元素。這就意味著中國肉類消費的峰值（同日本一樣）有可能會低于西方國家，并成為全世界做出表率。如果每個人的飲食習慣都更加“中式化”，那么世界都有可能變得更加可持續。

翻譯：呂嘉

安東尼·弗羅加，英國皇家國際事務研究所（查塔姆研究所）的能源、環境與發展項目高級研究員

The days of the 'Big Mac' may be numbered. Global per capita meat consumption is already higher than healthy levels, and is set to rise by 76% by 2050. This is unsustainable and poses significant threats to global health and the planet. In the US, the average person consumes three times more meat than health experts recommend.

Per capita consumption is significantly above recommended levels in other industrialised countries too, where it is associated with rising levels of obesity, cancer and heart disease. A rough rule of thumb is that people should aim to eat no more than 70g of red or processed meat a day - about the same as a small hamburger.

The picture is a bit different in China, where meat consumption is lower than in the West. On average, Chinese people eat about one and a half times as much meat every day as recommended, although aggregate levels are an overly simplistic measure given the country’s cultural, economic and geographical diversity.

The impact of rising consumption of meat (and processed foods) coupled with a lack of exercise is being felt: there are now approximately twice as many overweight as malnourished people in China. Levels of Chinese meat production – for domestic consumption and export – are also rising. In 1978, China's meat production was 8.5 million tonnes. By 2011, it had reached 79.5 million, an average annual increase of almost 7%. And until recently, increasing meat consumption was an explicit government strategy.

Globally, the livestock sector accounts for 15% of carbon dioxide emissions – as much the exhaust fumes from all forms of transport. And yet public awareness of the link between diet and climate is very low. Governments are afraid of the backlash if they tell people what to eat and as a result  place very little emphasis on reducing meat consumption when talking about the solutions to climate change. A new report out today argues that this must change. This does not mean everyone should become vegetarian. Rather, they should shift to healthy diets, and reduce the amount of meat that is consumed, to bring it in line with recommended levels.

In researching the report, Chatham House carried out an online survey in 12 countries, and in-depth focus groups in China, Brazil, the UK and US. The focus groups threw light on what governments will need to do to shift public behaviour. They also revealed interesting differences between people’s attitudes to meat in different countries - though all respondents identified strong social barriers to changing diets.

Changing behaviour

In light of their lower aggregate consumption levels and China’s later economic development, Chinese participants tended to think that asking people to reduce their meat eating would be ‘unfair’. One respondent said that ‘governments wouldn’t be that stupid’. This reflects the fact that in China – and Brazil – meat consumption is seen as a sign of social and economic progress, with wealthier respondents expressing a desire to eat more meat.

The impact of meat on climate change is not on the public agenda in China. There is a low level of public knowledge about this issue and a high degree of confusion. However, while Chinese participants tended to know less than people in other countries about the link between diet and climate change, they were more likely to be prepared to change their diets on being presented with the facts. This may in part be to do with the ‘lived experience' of Chinese people in urban areas, who associate high levels of atmospheric pollution with climate change, and are ready to take individual action to reduce this. It also reflects higher levels of trust in the authorities, and lower scepticism about science.

Intervention

Importantly, respondents in all focus group countries said that if governments did introduce new policies to encourage a change in diet, the initial resistance would subside and people would go along with the changes, as they have with other public health interventions, such as restrictions on smoking. This suggests that governments’ assumption that effecting dietary change is too difficult is unjustified.

A particular cause for optimism in China is that the traditional diet lends itself to reduced meat content. It is heavy in vegetables and grains, and achieving a sustainable meat to plant ratio is not difficult. There are also many alternatives to meat and dairy and a history of fortification of food products with iron to address anaemia. This means that China’s meat consumption (like Japan’s) is likely to peak at lower levels than in the West. It also suggests that China could set an example to the rest of the world. If everyone ate a more ‘Chinese’ diet we might be able to feed the world sustainably.

The full report: Changing Climate, Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption