Consumer demand for so-called sustainable, responsible or organic meat - 'happy meat' - is on the rise. Such meat and dairy are marketed as being better for both the environment and the animals than non-organic or factory farmed products. But can this new wave of responsible meat eating truly be considered ethical?

All meat production contributes to climate change and uses huge amounts of energy and water. It’s a carbon intensive exercise; producing one kilo of meat causes emissions that are equivalent to 36.4 kilos of carbon dioxide. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the United Nation's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, said recently that eating less - or no - meat is a good way that individuals can contribute to the fight against global warming.

Many families in Australia are currently switching to water-saving shower heads and thinking about other ways they can cut their water usage in the home. However, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the CSIRO Balancing Act Report, water for meat and dairy production exceeds total household consumption. Despite the promotion of ethical meat as an environmentally friendly alternative, the product you buy is still a part of an overall industry that uses 16,500 giga litres of water per year (compared with 2000 giga litres per year for household). Cutting your meat intake will lead to more water savings than cutting your shower time.

In addition, raising and transporting that slab of beef, lamb or pork requires the same amount of energy as lighting a 100-watt bulb for nearly three weeks.

These are the facts of meat. The impact of the industry as a whole is enormous and buying ethical or organic meat still has the same outcome of severe environmental degradation.

The BBC recently ran a report on ‘ethical veal’. Several supermarkets in the UK, such as Tesco and Marks & Spencer, have announced that they will be discontinuing European veal lines in favour of British-reared meat, which is more 'ethical'. Calves raised in the UK have legislative rights to bedding, more space and a better diet than their European counterparts. In addition, it is hoped that by promoting British veal, less calves will 'have' to be shipped to Europe to be farmed there.

But is this truly ethical veal, or just less cruel veal? And how can a consumer really separate the truth from the hype when it comes to making food choices? They can’t.

The difference in quality of life between British veal and European veal is that British calves have bedding, more space and a better diet. However a closer look at the facts reveals that for calves weighing between 150-220 kilos, British calves get an extra .3 metre square of space (2m sq compared to 1.7m sq in Europe). Are the British cows better off? Minimally. Is this an adequate living space? Doubtful. Are they all slaughtered for unnecessary human consumption? Yes.

Use of the words ‘organic’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘happy’ in relation to meat can still mean that animals are raised in some pretty horrendous living situations. Just because an animal’s living situation is improved, does not mean it is acceptable.

It is good that people are thinking about ways they can consume more ethically. However, ‘ethical meat’ is an oxymoron. The rise of 'responsible meat eating' lessens people's guilt without actually lessening the impact on animals or the planet.

WORDS: Lisa Dempster