ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��

The Netherlands, a global leader in meat production, has been under growing pressure to reform its intensive farm system. Earlier this year, the government to reduce nitrogen emissions in protected Natura 2000 areas by 50% before 2030 or face €10 million in fines, following a lawsuit from Greenpeace over inadequate environmental protections. With national elections on October 29, the issue of how to manage intensive livestock farming and the country’s environmental obligations will again be a central issue in the broader debate about the country’s future.  

Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� researchers Floor Haalboom and Lidwien Smit, both keynote speakers at the Start of the Academic Year, argue that the livestock crisis is not just an environmental problem but a political and cultural choice. We spoke to them about how the Netherlands got here, and how it might change.  

Floor, as a historian, how did a small country like the Netherlands end up as the European Union’s biggest meat exporter? 

“There’s a long history behind this. In the late 19^th century, Dutch farmers began importing cheap grain from North America. At that point, most farms were small and diverse – a couple of cows, some chickens, crops to feed both people and animals. Once imported grain became available, farm animals no longer depended only on what farms could grow themselves. That was the first big turning point.  

After the Second World War, another breakthrough occurred: an acceleration in compound feeding. This animal feed was a mix of all kinds of imported products, like South American soy, Scandinavian fishmeal, and by-products of the oil industry. Feeding farm animals this way enabled the . Pigs and chickens could be moved indoors, and farmers could keep many more animals on the same piece of land. That’s how the Netherlands became such a big producer and exporter of meat and dairy worldwide: by feeding farm animals with produce from other countries’ land and oceans. 

Agro- and food industrial actors have benefitted immensely, of course. But it has been a disaster for the planet.” 

How exactly is industrial livestock farming affecting the health of our planet?  

Floor: “The importing of feed commodities, which, by the way, was only possible thanks to fossil fuels, is one of the  biggest contributors to the Dutch nitrogen crisis. Because farmers who grow soy in Brazil, for example, use synthetic fertilizers rich in nitrogen and phosphorus. When our livestock eat that soy, most of those nutrients are excreted via their manure and urine, producing ammonia and thereby creating an excess of nitrogen here in the Dutch soil and the environment.”  

Lidwien: “And it’s not just about the problems it causes here. Producing large amounts of soy to feed cows or pigs in Europe causes ecological imbalances and soil degradation in countries such as Brazil where feed for animals is grown.  

On top of this, the Netherlands mostly has very intensive, large-scale livestock farms, especially for pigs and poultry, with large numbers and a high density of animals per farm. This leads to problems like air pollution and odour nuisance, but also an increased risk of antimicrobial resistance and zoonotic diseases [those transmitted from animals to humans] such as Q fever and avian influenza. And because this country is so densely populated, many people live close to these farms, so the impacts on health and quality of life are large. We have a lot of scientific evidence on these health risks, but policymakers are often hesitant to act, and decisions keep getting delayed.” 

In some parts of the world, it’s very difficult to have a healthy food system without animals.

With such clear evidence, why hasn't the country struck a deal on farming yet?  

Lidwien: “It's complex, because science is built on uncertainty and careful interpretation. As researchers, we must point out the evidence, but also the limitations and uncertainties of our research. The problem is when others, for political, economic, or personal reasons, take those uncertainties out of context or pick only the parts that fit their interests to keep things the way they are. For example, we’ve just published showing a clear link between goat farming and the risk of pneumonia. But certain politicians and other stakeholders have tried to dismiss these findings as inconclusive or biased, creating no sense of responsibility to act.” 

Floor: “This is not new. Research by science historians shows how industries such as the tobacco and oil industries have misused scientific doubt to block measures against their harmful commercial activities. The worrying thing for me is that the same playbook is now being used in the Netherlands by those in favour of industrial livestock farming to discredit scientific findings.” 

So, what would a sustainable farming system look like?  

Floor: “I think this is a democratic question that society must answer collectively. Based on my research, my only concern is that we have this long history of parties with a significant stake in industrial livestock farming making decisions that have huge consequences for the health of people and the environment that continues to this day. That is not democratic. I think that’s the problem we must address as academics. It’s not my place to say, ‘This is the direction to take with livestock farming.” 

The meat-intensive diets we consider normal today are a very recent invention.

But do you think animals still fit on our plate?  

Lidwien: “Yes, people can still eat animals, but not in the same way we do in the West. It’s just not possible. I think the sensible thing to do is to reduce the amount of animal products in our diets.” 

Floor: “It’s important to remember that the meat-intensive diets we consider normal today are in fact a very recent invention. In the case of Western Europe, they are a phenomenon of the second half of the 20^th century. We’re talking about reducing our meat and dairy consumption to the levels seen in the 1950s. Some people retort strongly when they hear this. But people who grew up at that time enjoyed a much healthier diet.” 

Lidwien: “That’s right. People in their 80s and 90s right now grew up eating meat maybe once a week, and they were healthy. We are not suggesting that everyone should become vegan or vegetarian. In some parts of the world, it’s very difficult to have a healthy food system without animals. But another issue is how we think about responsibility. In the Netherlands, only about , yet the average Dutch person consumes about each year than someone in Sri Lanka or India.”  

Floor: “The Asian context is interesting because it has a long history of vegetarianism. So, the self-evidence of always having to eat animals is not the case everywhere in the world. It’s also important to realise that our “meat obsession” in the West hass been cultivated by the industries that profit from these consumption patterns and are not necessarily concerned with the health of people or the environment.”  

And what gives you hope? Where do you see real movement or hope right now in science, policy, or society? 

Floor: “I have a lot of trust in science. Scientists can play a key role in identifying the questions that need to be asked to decide which direction to go in. We need new expertise for that. People sometimes say, ‘We cannot go back to the days of Ot and Sien [the children from a famous series of early 20th-century Dutch schoolbooks]’, referring to the poverty-stricken conditions of pre-Second World War Europe. But that’s not the point – we don't need to go back in time. We need to change. As a historian, the first thing you learn is that cultures are always changing, and that means we can change direction too.” 

Lidwien: “I also find a lot of hope in the younger generation. For example, at Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��, vegetarian lunches are increasingly common. While some still insist on eating meat, there is a clear cultural shift happening. 

Sometimes I hope that, if there’s another scandal in slaughterhouses or new diseases linked to animals, that might push people to finally say, 'Enough.'”