The three of us have chosen not to eat meat. Here's why.

Livestock production produces more greenhouse gases – 18 per cent – than the whole transport sector – 13 per cent. Some gases from meat production are far more dangerous than those produced by transport. Nitrous oxide has about 300 times the Global Warming Potential of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

Meat takes upwards of 16 times more energy and resources than its vegetable equivalent. This includes massively more water, at a time when 62 per cent of the world's population face water "stress" or drought.

At present rates, meat production will double worldwide to 465m tonnes by 2050.

It already uses 70 per cent of all agricultural land, and causes huge deforestation to create space for growing feedstuff.

The human dimension cannot be ignored. One billion of the world's population are obese – and one billion suffer food scarcity or are starving.

In terms of environmental and health factors, reliable statistics show that livestock in the United States causes 55 per cent of erosion, 37 per cent use of pesticides and 50 per cent use of antibiotics.

As recent epidemics have highlighted, 60 per cent of human pathogens – bugs – come from animals or poultry.

The better news is that a modest change to our eating habits can have a major effect on the rate of climate change. Even better is that vegetarians have 28 per cent less heart disease, 39 per cent lower cancer mortality and suffer 50 per cent less diabetes. In my own case, not eating meat dropped my "bad" cholesterol by 27 per cent.

The economist Lord Stern, author of a major report on the economic impact of climate change, recently observed, to some controversy:
"Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet
is better."

Sustainable meat, dairy and fish production is hardly mentioned
in the climate change debate. A change of diet is literally our biggest chance to stop global warming, as well as improving our health and saving money.

The issue of sustainable food policy is seen by many – but not enough – as key to winning the "hot war" against global warming, with world population likely to rise to more than nine billion by 2050, and meat and milk consumption set to double.

Coming from a farming family, I have seen the efforts to "green" Europe's agriculture in recent years at first hand. My constituency has exemplary sustainable livestock production in the Yorkshire Dales and Moors, where upland production of beef and lamb, unchanged for centuries, should earn a premium price.

It is now common to see fish and fish products labelled as to their sustainability. The same should apply to meat. The vicar in one of the poorest parts of my constituency – Dewsbury – said last year that some of his parishioners can no longer afford to eat meat.

I recognise that and I am not suggesting that higher meat prices – which are inevitable – should place it beyond their reach, but that they should consider a healthier and cheaper alternative diet.

This is now the recommendation for all of us from the NHS, the German environment agency, the Swedish government (at present in the chair of the EU) and numerous other bodies.

Africa's small farmers, who produce most of the continent's food and depend mostly on rain, could see harvests halve by 2020. We must make significant changes to feed ourselves and, most especially,
to safeguard the poorest and most vulnerable: the wealthy world must literally step up to the plate to make the developing countries' food production sustainable.

Richer countries are also buying up land in the developing countries. Olivier De Schutter, special envoy for food at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and another speaker at my Brussels hearing, said: "(The trend] is accelerating quickly. All countries observe each other and when one sees others buying land, it does the same."

As Pope Benedict told the UN's World Food Summit in Rome which preceded Copenhagen: "Hunger is the most cruel and concrete sign of poverty.

"Opulence and waste are no longer acceptable when the tragedy of hunger is assuming ever greater proportions."

In 2006, the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) based in Rome issued its 400-page ground-breaking report, Livestock's Long Shadow. It gave a stark warning: "The environmental costs per unit of livestock
production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of
damage worsening beyond itspresent level."

Earlier this month, a conference at Leeds University on climate
change heard from Environment Secretary Hilary Benn, John Prescott and myself.

The panelist who had the best answer was Franny Armstrong, whose 10:10 campaign invites individuals to make the change. Rightly, she includes eating less meat.


Edward McMillan-Scott, an MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber, is a Vice-President of the European Parliament. His portfolio includes Democracy and Human Rights. He sits as an independent.