The close correlation between diet and environment that has been demonstrated by Michael Clark at the University of Oxford (Healthy food choices best for people and planet, study shows, 29 October) is interesting and potentially important. I hope the researchers will extend their studies into the environmental impact of what is variously known as cultured, in vitro or lab-grown meat. These products are now reaching consumers and prices will fall. Ostensibly, they appear environmentally beneficial.
The “meat” is grown from cell samples painlessly extracted from a small number of animals, so killing and long-distance freighting is eliminated. Methane from domestic ruminants will be drastically reduced. Forests need not be supplanted by grazing or soy production for animal feed. Land can be released for growing more plant-based food or to be returned to nature. If it can also be shown that environmental harm is curbed, the role these products can play will be crucial in reducing greenhouse gasses. More research is required as soon as possible.
Patrick Cosgrove
Chapel Lawn, Shropshire
• I take issue with your editorial on Extinction Rebellion (22 October) and whether it wishes to achieve “reform or revolution”. Neither, thank you. Our three aims are clear: truth-telling by government, rapid action towards zero-carbon emissions, and – for many of us the most important one – a citizens’ assembly charged with mapping out the best ways in which the UK can address the climate emergency.
We believe a citizens’ assembly, like the Irish one that addressed abortion, can create a plan that most members of this country would buy into and act upon. It is disappointing that the government shows no sign of accepting this modest request – but it also disappointing that journalists are not putting pressure on ministers to explain their thinking (if any) on this.
Mark Haworth-Booth
Swimbridge, Devon
• This article was amended on 31 October 2019. Due to an editing error, Mark Haworth-Booth’s letter listed one of Extinction Rebellion’s aims as “truth-telling to government”. That should have been “truth-telling by government”, as he originally wrote. This has now been corrected.
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition
