According to research on the impact of meat substitutes, it seems is far more environmentally-friendly to eat red meat, than turning into a vegetarian.

Commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Cranfield University study said many meat substitutes were made from imported soy, lentils and chickpeas.

Turning vegetarian and consuming those food types would only result in forests being destroyed so as to bring more land overseas under the cultivation of lentils, etc.

Moreover, many of these kinds of meat substitutes required energy-intensive systems for producing and processing them.

These findings are in stark contrast to the claims of an environmental group that meat eating endangers the environment and switching to a meat-free diet would go a long way in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the current study believes, any switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues like tofu, would only result in increasing the quantity of arable land for supplying the UK.

In addition, if there was a significant increase in vegetarianism in UK, it would lead to a collapse of the country’s livestock industry, resulting in the shift of meat production to overseas countries, with few regulations in place for protecting forests and uncultivated land.

Donal Murphy-Bokern, one of the study’s authors said, eating tofu and other meat substitutes did not symbolise environmental friendliness, and it would be far better to simply eat more bread, pasta and potatoes in place of meat to be more environmentally friendly.

However, Liz O’Neill from the Vegetarian Society said the report’s figures were based on ‘questionable assumptions’, and undermined the enormous damage caused by the livestock industry, while a plant-based diet was not only good for animals, but also for the human health and the environment.

A WWF spokesman reiterated the importance of remember the large amounts of methane produced by livestock, which was a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.