On 29 May 2026, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and the Environment sent a response to the House of Representatives regarding a memorandum from an entrepreneur in the food sector. The title of that memorandum was: “Is switching to a plant-based diet actually better for the environment?”
The Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and the Environment had asked the minister to respond to this. The usual line is ‘less animal, more plant’. But if one looks more closely at agricultural land, animal feed, waste streams and circular agriculture, one sees that the reality is less black and white.
The letter-writer questioned the notion that a shift towards a plant-based diet is automatically better for the environment. His point was not that everything should stay the same. He focused primarily on the interconnection between agricultural land, arable farming, livestock farming, waste streams and animal feed.
Not every hectare of agricultural land is suitable for arable farming. Crops for human consumption can be grown on fertile arable land. However, grasslands and peat meadows serve a different purpose. It is precisely there that livestock farming can play a logical role.
Waste streams are also important. Animals can utilise raw materials that are not directly suitable for human consumption. Examples include grass, crop residues and by-products from food production. In this way, they can convert these streams into higher-value food.
The crux of the paper was therefore broader than the question of whether people should eat less meat. The real question was: “Is a food system truly more sustainable when animal production is scaled back without further consideration?”
The minister responded by stating that the aim remains to achieve an average ratio of 50:50 between animal and plant-based proteins by 2030. According to the letter, by 2025 the Dutch were still consuming an average of around 60% of animal protein.
However, the minister also acknowledges that animals can continue to play a functional role in a sustainable food system. She points out that livestock can utilise waste streams from arable farming and human consumption. Grassland can also be used for food production via livestock where arable farming is not possible or only possible to a limited extent. In addition, manure plays a role in the cycle: nutrients can be returned to the soil and reused for crops. That is an important nuance.
The minister is not saying that every form of livestock farming is sustainable. Nor is the protein transition being abandoned. However, she makes it clear that animals cannot simply be eliminated from the food system.
One weakness in the public debate is that agricultural land is often treated as if every hectare were freely available for use. But that is not the case.
Fertile arable land is well suited to food crops. Grassland and peat meadows have different characteristics. On such land, grazing or forage production may be a more sensible option than arable farming. This also shifts the demand.
It is not just the volume of animal or plant production that matters. What is more important is how land, feed and waste streams are actually utilised. A sustainable food system therefore does not require a single, one-size-fits-all solution. It requires choices that are suited to the soil, the region and the supply chain.
The role of livestock is often assessed solely in terms of emissions or land use. These are topical issues. But they do not tell the whole story. Animals also fulfil a circular function.
They can utilise grass that humans do not eat. They can process waste streams from arable farming and food production. They can convert lower-value streams into meat, milk or eggs. And nutrients can be returned to the soil via manure. That does not automatically make animal production sustainable. But it does mean that animal and plant-based production are not always at odds with one another.
In a well-designed food system, arable farming and livestock farming should actually reinforce one another.
The minister’s letter does not mark a change of course. The government remains committed to increasing the consumption of plant-based proteins. However, the reaction does show that the debate is too often oversimplified.
Animal-based versus plant-based is not the right dichotomy. A better question is: “How do we build a food system in which land, feed, waste streams and animals are used as sensibly as possible?”
A more sustainable food system is not achieved simply by reducing animal production. It is achieved primarily by taking a closer look at what delivers the most value where.
Source: https://open.overheid.nl/details/f7c68a87-a8ca-4462-ab8c-2ccdb5644e77
