• The small body problem
• The Small Body Problem Challenges and Considerations for Animal Advocates

In a previous post, we discussed the Small body problem (SBP). To quickly recap: when trying to get people to eat fewer animal products, environmental and health focussed diet messages often result in people moving from cows and pigs to chicken and fish (and possibly also insects). This results in more animal suffering because chickens, insects and fish are smaller, and so it takes more of them to produce the same amount of meat. A cow can feed a village, whereas a single bucket of chicken wings is a lot of dead chickens. More animals means more suffering.

The small body problem is very real

• Poultry is the fastest rising meat produced worldwide, and as Asia gets richer, demand for fish is exploding (see also here).
• In developed countries, chicken is often the only meat that is not decreasing. In the UK, between 2009 and 2019, red meat consumption reduced 37% whereas white meat increased nearly 10%
• Work from Bryant Research and the Social Market Foundation shows that the UK public is aware that chicken is healthier and better for the environment than red meat:
  • 75% of people thought chicken is a “healthy” food, compared to 34% for beef and 27% for pork.
  • 25% think chicken is bad for the environment, compared to 55% for beef and 42% for pork.

A harder problem than you think

The small body problem is even harder than you think. Animal advocates often rely on 3 key types of argument to convince people to reduce animal product consumption: Environment, Health and Animal Welfare. Arguments around climate impact and health are the reason we're in this mess in the first place. But animal welfare appeals are also a hard sell. It's pretty obvious that people don't empathise with birds or fish as much as cows and pigs. Most people think shrimp look alien and weird, not cute. People are increasingly accepting evidence that pigs are as smart as dogs, but continue to believe that chickens are stupid.

If animal advocates cannot solve the SBP, we risk doing more harm than good. Imagine the extreme case where everyone eats the same amount of meat, but it's all chicken and fish. This world would be healthier, the environment would be much better, but the amount of animal suffering would be shockingly larger. What can we do?

Solutions

Here we compile some promising arguments, alongside the research to back them up.

Health arguments to tackle the small body problem

Not all studies find that chicken and fish are healthier than red meat:

• This review of 36 studies finds that diets high in chicken and/or fish are no better for heart health than beef heavy diets. There is a good explainer on NutritionFacts.org here.
• This study of 89,000 Europeans found that those who ate more fish gained as much weight as people on other diets else over a 5 year period, and another study found the same for chicken.
• Lastly, one extremely thorough meta analysis concluded that eggs are a significant risk factor in type 2 diabetes.

It can also be useful to focus on health issues other than weight and heart health: This study found that if you tell people about the potential health benefits of fish, they eat more, but if you tell them about fish contain low levels of toxic environmental contaminants like mercury, they eat less.

Advocates can also use public health arguments: this paper in science argues that a shift from beef to chicken (and pork), is likely to increase the risk of pandemics and disease outbreaks, especially when those chickens are factory farmed. Additionally, avian flu is a huge issue worldwide, costing the USA alone billions, spiking inflation, and causing mass culling. Also antibiotic arguments, but it might be the case that chicken and fish are quite good for these

Environmental arguments to tackle the small body problem

It's an unfortunate fact that the majority of animal agriculture's climate impact comes from cows. But that doesn't mean that cows are always worse for the environment as a whole. Chicken has it's own environmental issues:

• In the UK, the rapid growth of factory chicken farms threatens the health of a large number of key rivers. Concentrated waste from these farms is far more than the local environment can handle.
• Chicken may be the meat most responsible for the destruction of the amazon rainforest. The biggest driver of deforestation in South America is growing soybeans, 37% of which is fed to chickens.

As for fish, we can highlight that the fishing industry is responsible for most junk that ends up in the ocean, including most of the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch"

We can also emphasise biodiversity problems. Animal agriculture hurts biodiversity a number of ways:

• Cutting down habitat for grazing or growing crops for feed. the latter argument applies just as much to small bodied animals.
• Catching wild fish to feed to farmed fish directly fights the SBP
• Farm animal disease can affect wild animals
  • In the case of bird flu this directly tackles SBP
• Animal manure pollutes rivers which kills marine life
  • Chicken farms are a key issue here.

Animal advocates can take a broader approach on the environment than just climate by evaluating various forms of animal agriculture against the entirety of the Sustainable Development Goals:

Misc issues

• Workers rights

Alternative proteins as a solution to the small body problem

Alternative proteins may also be a powerful tool to fight the small body problem. Plant-based meat alternatives are much better for the environment than the meat they replace, whether it be on Greenhouse gasses, land, water use or river pollution. Additionally, contrary to misinformation spread in the media, plant based meat alternatives are healthier than meat (see also here).

Consumers who love the taste of beef and pork but want a healthier, more climate friend option may opt for beef and pork alternatives instead of chicken or fish, which many consider to be not as tasty. This is encouraging, as it suggests that beef and pork alternatives do not need to be as tasty as the meats they are replacing, they simply have to be tastier than other replacements such as chicken and fish.

At the time of writing, several brands of chicken alternatives have reached taste parity with regular chicken, and though beef and bacon alternatives did not, it may be the case that consumers would find an impossible beef burger preferable to a chicken burger. And if red-meat alternatives taste better than chicken, they may not need to reach price parity with chicken to see large adoption. Read more on adoption of plant based meat alternatives here.

Reframe the debate: a plant-based diet is the best of all worlds.

Finally, we can Reframe the debate. Some discuss the small body problem as a "dilemma" or a "tradeoff", suggesting you have to "pick your poison" when it comes to what animals to eat. If you follow a plant-based diet, you know we don't have to make this tradeoff. Highlight that if we care about climate, health and animal welfare, the only complete solution is a plant-based diet. The "omnivore's dilemma" is only a dilemma if you're an omnivore!

We should also highlight that, whilst chicken and fish are better than red meat for climate and health, a plant-based diet is the best on both fronts. People's climate footprint declines when they swap beef for chicken, but declines even more when they swap chicken for plant-based foods. If the UK swapped 50% pork and chicken for plant based foods, it would 8.5 times more deaths than swapping 75% of beef for pork and chicken. Trading eggs for nuts is better for your health. Pescatarians have lower cancer rates than other meat eaters, but vegetarians have an even lower risk than pescatarians. And the 36 study review I mentioned earlier found that only a plant-based diet was healthier than beef. Sure, chicken and fish can be better than beef, but plant-based is clearly the best option.

Conclusion

I hope this piece has demonstrated that whilst the small body problem is a big challenge, we have a variety of arguments to tackle it.

New info

• This preprint argues that a carbon tax would not result in the SBP