Sample IR

Reports. Use this checklist to explore how it meets the assessment requirements.
Please also take a look at our Out of the Box teaching materials for IGCSE GP,
which includes a unit on Sustainable Living which nicely complements this
resource.
A personal voice is used for parts of the report. This is intentional because the IR
is not simply a report about the issue, it is a report about the research project,
and includes a requirement to develop and justify the writer’s own personal
perspective (AO2 Reflection). The personal voice does not affect the academic
standard of the writing. See this article for more discussion of style.

IGCSE Global Perspectives Example Individual Research Report

Topic: Sustainable Living
Should we stop eating animal-sourced foods to live sustainably?
As a vegetarian, I am often asked to justify my choice of diet. I initially decided to
stop eating animals when I found out about the horrors of the industrial farming
system,1 but lately I have heard claims that sustainability is another reason to
avoid animal-sourced foods, and I want to find out if this is true. Vegetarianism
and veganism are perspectives on diet shared by many people around the world.
The number is growing, but they are still only a few percent of the population in
most countries.2 This means that the dominant global perspective is that animal-
sourced foods are essential (or at least right and proper). The United Nations
offers a third global perspective, which is worth considering because it attempts
to create global agreement on sustainable development.
Evaluation of sources
I started with the documentary film Cowspiracy, which may be biased with a
vegan perspective, but transparently lists its sources via its website so I could
check its claims. Most seemed well sourced, but I rejected the striking claim that
51% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from animal agriculture
because it included controversial assumptions, so for this I used a landmark
scientific study: Poore and Nemaek (2018)3. Published in Nature, a leading peer-
reviewed journal, it is based on a huge data set (which gives it high accuracy)
and has very comprehensive analysis (giving it high credibility). We can see
Poore is highly expert from his affiliation to Oxford University, 4 and the study is
highly praised by other experts.5 I have also used the findings of the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). UN bodies can be trusted
because they have large global teams of top scientists, and they are under such
scrutiny that they cannot spin their findings. For other information I have used
only quality sources such as government websites and reputable news agencies
rather than blog posts.
Effects of production and consumption of animal-sourced foods
As Fig.1 shows, animal agriculture takes up a massive proportion of the world’s
habitable land and the bulk of the agricultural land, but it supplies only 18% and
37% of the world’s calories and protein respectively, meaning it is very
inefficient.
Fig.1 – Global land use for food production 6

Compared to agriculture as a whole, animal agriculture consumes a

disproportionate amount of land and fresh water, and causes the majority of air
and water pollution.7 It is also the biggest cause of species extinction, ocean
dead zones and habitat destruction. 8
Of these many dreadful effects, I think greenhouse gas emissions is the most
important to focus on, because the IPCC is warning that without drastic action we
are heading for a future 3-degrees hotter, with potentially catastrophic effects on
ecosystems, food security, sea levels, migration and wars. The window to take
effective action is rapidly narrowing, so it is extremely urgent. 9
The IPCC says there is “significant potential” to mitigate climate change by
adopting healthy diets high in plant-based foods and low in animal-sourced foods
worldwide.10 According to Poore’s study, even just reducing animal agriculture by
50% while targeting the worst producers would reduce total GHG emissions by
20%.11 That is more than emissions from all transport (16%) or all energy use in
buildings (17.5%).12 GHG savings from those will need massive investment in
infrastructure and technology and will take a long time. In contrast, the plant-
based proteins to replace animal-sourced ones make far lower GHG emissions
(Fig.2) and could be grown cheaply using just a little of the 3.5 billion
hectares13 of land saved from animal agriculture.
Fig. 2: a comparison of the carbon emissions from producing equivalent
quantities of protein14

Poore’s personal perspective must be one of the best-informed in the world. He

says: “‘A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on
planet Earth.”15
Is this perspective from the UN and from science being adopted by nations? —
Not very well! Governments around the world are missing the opportunity to
promote the lowest-carbon lifestyle choices, according to a 2017 study. 16 I
confirmed this was true for my country, the UK — in the 135-page document that
explains its plan to achieve “net zero” emissions by 2050 I could find no mention
of diet whatsoever.17 Unsurprisingly, the government is being sued by
environmental campaigners for failing to create an adequate plan. 18
For balance, I sought out the perspective of the animal agriculture industry. The
global industry does not speak with a single voice, but since the USA produces
and consumes far more meat than most other countries, 19 I looked to the largest
USA industry lobby group “Animal Agriculture Alliance” (AAA) for a representative
perspective supporting animal-sourced foods. The AAA claim that the industry’s
environmental impact is widely exaggerated, and that improving efficiency with
technological innovations is enough environmental action, without cutting down
on production.20
However, I was not persuaded that the AAA is a good source of information. The
website spins facts to support the industry, e.g. telling “Meat & Milk’s
Sustainability Story” entirely by percentage improvements in efficiency, 21 which
hides the fact that high growth has caused overall environmental impact to rise.
The AAA’s claim that the industry can reduce its environmental impact just by
increasing efficiency is wrong because people will buy more when the product
gets cheaper – an effect known as “price rebound”. 22 Overall therefore, this
perspective seems highly distorted by vested interest and tries to maintain
business as usual by giving false reassurances.

[Group of Zebu calves grazing in recently deforested land in the Amazon, Brazil.]
Causes of production and consumption of animal-sourced foods
If vegan foods offer such an environmentally beneficial alternative to meat, dairy
and seafood, why are there so few vegans? Why is consumption of animal-
sourced foods so high, and why aren’t governments and mainstream
environmental groups persuading us to switch to plant-based foods?
One reason is that the livestock industry is very powerful and intimidates its
opponents. In South America, many campaigners have been murdered. 23 In
countries with stronger rule of law such as the USA, critics can be sued 24 under
laws that protect the industry by restricting freedom of speech. 25 The powerful
industry lobby also influences the government to subsidise the cost of
production, e.g. by hunting predators and granting grazing on common
land.26 One study finds that if the externalised costs of meat production in the
USA had to be included, the price would more than double. 27
Food supply is big business, so countries with large natural resources have an
opportunity to exploit them to create wealth, regardless of sustainability. “You
have to understand that the Amazon is Brazil’s, not yours,” said President
Bolsonaro in 2019,” citing what he sees as hypocrisy from overseas
environmentalists: “You destroyed your own ecosystems.” 28 Believing two wrongs
make a right, Bolsonaro has engineered a boom in Brazil’s beef and pork exports,
causing huge additional damage to the Amazon rainforest. 29
Global economic growth has expanded the number of people who can afford
meat, and animal-sourced foods symbolise prosperity and status, 30 so people eat
more as they get wealthier. China is the most spectacular example in recent
years. China ate 5kg of meat per person per year in 1960 and eats 63kg
today.31 Unlike others, this is not a cause we would want to reverse, but it points
to the frightening prospect of massive additional environmental impact if billions
more people follow this trend when they make it out of poverty.
The widespread belief that meat and dairy are nutritionally essential is a major
driver of consumption. It is not supported by the UK’s National Health Service,
which voices national policy on health and nutrition: “As long as they get all the
nutrients they need, children can be brought up healthily on a vegetarian or
vegan diet.”32 Cultural beliefs like this require time and education to shift, so it is
disappointing to see that the UK government’s “Eatwell Guide” infographic 33 only
weakly acknowledges plant-based alternatives.
In contrast, China’s government has recently set a goal of halving meat
consumption by 2030, and is encouraging innovation and growth in the mock
meat industry.34 China’s Buddhist heritage may make it more culturally willing to
embrace meat substitutes, and it is starting to view meat as risky, as the origin
of diseases such as avian flu and COVID. 35 Cost is still a significant barrier to
mass uptake, and good plant-based meat is still more expensive than animal
meat, but China’s active government backing will help create the mass
production which will bring down costs. 36
Taste is another key cause, but recently I have personally noticed huge
improvements in plant-based meat and dairy substitutes, from companies such
as Omnifoods, Impossiblefoods, and Beyond. 37 Growing rapidly, such companies
intend to take market share from animal agriculture. 38
Which causes of meat consumption should we focus on? Some, like bullying and
lobbying by the animal agriculture industry seem unjust, selfish, negligent, or
even criminal, which motivates us to demand action against them. However, it is
hard to challenge powerful vested interests, so in the search for a solution it may
be better to consider the price and taste of substitute foods as the most
important factors because once the technology improves it will spread globally
and tend to weaken demand for animal-based foods naturally. Cultural factors
are also critical because they will strongly affect people’s willingness to eat
different foods.
Conclusions and reflection on the development of my personal
perspective
Should we stop eating animal-sourced foods? – Yes, my investigation shows that
they cause massive environmental harm, yet I found no reasons humanity
couldn’t thrive without them. I was astonished to find that despite such a high
impact on climate change, reducing animal agriculture is not yet prominent in
climate action plans. I also realised that alternative climate actions such as
travelling less would diminish our lives far more.
As a vegetarian myself, I was vulnerable to confirmation bias during this
investigation, and I realised the need for patience and empathy when reading
sources that opposed my views. The AAA website did not change my opinion, but
it did help me to see how destructive their opponents must seem from their
perspective, so I understood the need for support to help people transition their
livelihoods out of animal agriculture. It made me wonder whether I am equally
critical when I read information that supports my views, which prompted me to
make extra effort to check facts.
Suggested course of action
Because of the urgency for climate action, I think only government policies can
drive the necessary widespread change fast enough. All national governments
should accept the IPCC’s message and effectively plan a switch to low-carbon
plant-based diets. China’s 50% meat reduction policy is a good example to
follow. To achieve this, government education materials like the UK’s “Eatwell
Guide” should be updated to actively promote plant-based foods. Vegan food
producers should receive tax breaks, and meals funded by the government (in
schools, canteens for civil servants, etc.) should make the switch to increase
demand. This will boost development of ever more attractive plant-based foods,
and economies of scale to bring down their prices. Because culture and habits
take time and effort to change, the government should also enlist the help of
opinion leaders such as celebrity chefs to develop new, culturally attractive
vegan dishes. Governments will need to help people switch their livelihoods from
animal agriculture to the new opportunities which will arise, and should buy up
surplus agricultural land for rewilding as carbon sinks.
Creating new national parks and restored ecosystems to enjoy, plus delicious
new alternative foods to eat, this policy will have an overwhelmingly positive
impact besides reducing climate change.
Word count
Body: 1910 words; within Fig 1: 62 words; within Fig 2: 28 words. Total: 2000
words
Citations
1
Foer, J. Eating Animals. First Back Bay paperback edition. New York: Back Bay
Books, 2010. Print.
2
Wikipedia, “Vegetarianism By
Country” [Link] ,
accessed 2 Feb 2022
3
Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in
climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?” [Link]
content/uploads/[Link] accessed 2 Feb
2022
4
Poore & Nemecek (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through
producers and consumers, [Link]
%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Accepted%[Link] accessed 2 Feb
2022 and erratum [Link] accessed 2 Feb
2022
5
Ibid.
6
The Guardian, 31 May 2018, Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to
reduce your impact on
Earth [Link]
and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth accessed 2 Feb
2022
7
Data source: UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, graphic from Our World in
Data website: [Link] accessed 28
Jan 2022
8
Poore & Nemecek (2018)
9
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 6th
Report, [Link] , accessed 1 Feb 2022
10
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Special Report on Climate
Change and Land, Executive Summary “[Link] Can dietary shifts provide
significant benefits?” [Link] accessed 25
Jan 2022
11
Poore & Nemecek (2018) erratum [Link]
12
Our World in Data website: “Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas
emissions come from?” [Link]
sector accessed 31 Jan 2022
13
Our World in Data website: “If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would
reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion
hectares” [Link] accessed 2 Feb 2022
14
Data source: Poore & Nemecek (2018). Graphic from The Guardian,
31/04/2018, accessed 31 Jan 2022
15
Ibid.
16
Wynes, S. and Nicholas, K. 2017 Environmental Research Letters, “The climate
mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most
effective individual actions”, [Link]
9326/aa7541, accessed 31 Jan 2022
17
UK Government: HM Treasury, “Net-Zero Review”, October
2021, [Link]
uploads/attachment_data/file/1026725/NZR_-_Final_Report_-
_Published_version.pdf accessed 2 Feb 2022
18
The Guardian, 12 Jan 2022, “UK government sued over ‘pie-in-the-sky’ net-zero
climate strategy”, [Link]
zero-climate-strategy-uk-government-sued accessed 2 Feb 2022
19
OECD Data: “Meat Consumption”, [Link]
[Link] accessed 2 Feb 2022
20
[Link], “Animal Agriculture
Alliance”, [Link]
Alliance/ accessed 2 Feb 2022
21
Animal Agriculture Alliance website,
“Sustainability”, [Link] accessed 2
Feb 2022
22
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Special Report on Climate
Change and Land, Executive Summary “[Link] Can dietary shifts provide
significant benefits?” [Link] accessed 25
Jan 2022
23
The New York Times, 21 June 2016, “The Rising Murder Count of Environmental
Activists.” [Link]
[Link] accessed 2 Feb 2022
24
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press website: “Appeals court upholds
win in ‘mad cow’ lawsuit”, from Spring 2000 issue of The News Media & The
Law [Link]
appeals-court-upholds-win-m/ accessed 22 Jan 2022
25
Andersen & Kuhn, “Cowspiracy” 2022
version, [Link] accessed 21 Jan
2022
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
28
The Guardian, 19 July 2019, “Bolsonaro declares ‘the Amazon is ours’ and calls
deforestation data ‘lies’” [Link]
bolsonaro-brazil-amazon-rainforest-deforestation accessed 2 Feb 2022
29
The Guardian, 16 March 2021, “Eating up the rainforest: China’s taste for beef
drives exports from
Brazil”, [Link]
rainforest-chinas-taste-for-beef-drives-exports-from-brazil accessed 31 Jan 2022
30
United Nations, Academic Impact: “Shifting to Sustainable
Diets” [Link] ,
accessed 2 Feb 2022
31
Time, Jan 22, 2021: “How China Could Change the World by Taking Meat Off the
Menu”, [Link] , accessed 2 Feb 2022
32
UK National Health Service website: “Vegetarian and vegan diets
Q&A”, [Link]
accessed 31 Jan 2022
33
UK Government, Public Health England, “The Eatwell
Guide” [Link] accessed
31 Jan 2022
34
Time, Jan 22, 2021: “How China Could Change the World by Taking Meat Off the
Menu”, [Link] , accessed 2 Feb 2022
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
37
Own experience
38
MSN News: “Impossible Foods Prepares To Go Public At Around $10B Valuation:
Report” [Link]
go-public-at-around-10b-valuation-report/ar-BB1ft0qO accessed 27 Jan 2022