ABSTRACT
One single component in the total water footprint of humanity stands out: the water footprint related to the consumption of animal products. About 85 per cent of humanity’s water footprint is related to the consumption of agricultural products; 10 per cent relates to industrial products and only 5 per cent to domestic water consumption (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007, 2008). Within the category of agricultural products, animal products generally have a much larger water footprint per kilogram or calorific value than crop products. This means that if people consider reducing their water footprint, they are advised to look critically at their diet rather than at their water use in the kitchen, bathroom and garden. Wasting water never makes sense, so saving water at home when possible is certainly advisable, but if we limit our actions to water reductions at home, many of the most severe water problems in the world will hardly be lessened. The water in the Murray-Darling basin in Australia is so scarce mostly because of water use for the production of various types of fruits, vegetables, cereals and cotton. The Ogallala Aquifer in the American Midwest is gradually being depleted because of water abstractions for the irrigation of crops like maize and wheat. Many of the grains cultivated in the world are not for human consumption but for animals. In the United States, for example, 68 per cent of the grains consumed are used for animal feed (Millstone and Lang, 2003). Animal products have a relatively large water footprint because of the water needed to grow their feed rather than the water volumes required for drinking. From a water saving point of view it is obviously more efficient to eat the crops directly rather than indirectly by having them first processed into meat. Surprisingly, however, little attention is paid among scientists and policy makers to the relationship between meat consumption and water use.
