Solutions To The Small Body Problem

October 2024

“We’ve compiled a variety of promising arguments that we believe can be used to tackle the Small Body Problem. Here we briefly outline these arguments, and provide research and data to support each point. – Thomas Manandhar-Richardson

In Context

In a previous post, we discussed the small body problem (SBP), sometimes called the “small animal replacement problem”.

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 could feed one person – and that’s a lot of dead chickens. More animals means more suffering.

Small Body Problem in Numbers

The graph shows data from Europe on the % of chicken, beef and pork produced vs the % of animals slaughtered that are chickens, cows and pigs. We can see that almost half of the meat produced was pork, with chicken lagging behind at 1/3. However almost all the animals slaughtered, 96.7%, were chickens. Despite beef being nearly 1/5 meat produced, the number of cows slaughtered barely registers on the graph when compared to chickens.

Data is from 2014, the latest year for which we could find data from the same source. Data collected by the FAO, made available by Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production

The Small Body Problem is Very Real

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 the environmental and health impacts tend to favour chicken and fish over red meat, exacerbating the SBP. But animal welfare appeals are also a hard sell. 

One key issue is that people don’t empathise with birds or fish as much as cows and pigs. One survey found that 20% of Europeans think fish cannot feel pain, and a further 9% are unsure if they do. People are increasingly accepting evidence that pigs are as smart as dogs, but continue to believe that chickens are unintelligent (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: reproduced from Mercy for Animals

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 all of it is 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

We’ve compiled a variety of promising arguments that we believe can be used to tackle the Small Body Problem. Here we briefly outline these arguments, and provide research and data to support each point.

Health Arguments

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

  • This review of 36 studies finds that when it comes to cholesterol, swapping from beef to chicken or fish has no benefits. On the other hand, studies swapping animal protein for high quality plant protein improved cholesterol. There is a good video explainer on NutritionFacts.org here.
  • This study of 89,000 Europeans across 5 countries measured participants’ waists over several years, to see if eating more fish helped prevent weight gain. They found that people who ate more fish gained just as many cm on their waist on average as people who ate other proteins.
  • Similarly another study of 370,000 people across 10 European countries found that those who ate more meat gained more weight, regardless of whether it was red meat, processed meat or chicken. Surprisingly, higher chicken consumption was associated with more weight gain than red meat consumption!
  • Lastly, one extremely thorough meta analysis analysed how 12 different food groups impacted the risk factor of developing type 2 diabetes. They found 16 studies on fish consumption, overall finding no increased or decreased risk of type 2 diabetes. However the 12 studies on eggs showed that higher egg consumption (more than around 3 eggs a week) was associated with greater risk of type 2 diabetes.
  • Eggs may also be worse for health than the research literature suggests. A systematic review of 211 studies on eggs and cholesterol found that the egg industry has funded 58% of studies between 2010 and 2019. Of course, industry funding does not automatically mean bias. But worryingly, industry-funded research was less likely to find that eggs increased cholesterol than non-industry funded research, and more likely to misrepresent results as showing no harm.

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 containing 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.

Environmental Arguments

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 its 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.

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“.

Alternative Proteins As A Potential Solution

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 gases, land use, water use, or river pollution. Additionally, contrary to misinformation spread in the media, plant based meat alternatives are healthier than meat (see also here).

At the time of writing, several brands of chicken alternatives score similarly to conventional chicken on taste, though beef and bacon alternatives currently fall short of their animal-based counterparts. However, this disparity may not be as concerning as it initially appears. Meat alternatives, whether beef, pork or chicken alternatives, may only need to taste better than real chicken for consumers to choose them. 

Consumers are already moving from beef and pork to chicken (and to a lesser extent, fish). If plant-based chicken alternatives are as appealing to consumers as regular chicken, but are healthier and better for the environment, consumers may instead shift from red meat to plant based chicken. 

Another possibility is that if plant based beef and pork alternatives are more appealing to consumers than regular chicken, then consumers may go plant based even if they prefer regular beef and pork.

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 that we don’t have to make this tradeoff at all. Advocates can 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 are an omnivore.

We should also highlight that, while chicken and fish are better than red meat for the environment 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. In short, chicken and fish can be better than beef – but plant-based is clearly the best option.

Related Resources