Increasingly, consumers are trying to reduce the environmental impacts of the foods they eat. But it's not so easy to know what to do, in part because of the bewildering array of food choices the market offers, but also because it's hard to know what food choices carry the biggest impact.
This nifty study tries to clear away some of the murk by tackling a fairly straightforward question: If you care about the climate, which is more important, what kind of food you eat, or where that food is grown?
To summarize the findings: All else being equal, locally grown food is friendlier to the climate than food grown half a continent away. But if you're looking for a single food choice that will help curb your climate impact, your best bet is to stay away from cows!
Take a look, for example, at this chart of GHG emissions per calorie for different kinds of foods. Red meat (the dark blue bar) has far and away the biggest climate impact. Nothing else comes close. Dairy products (the light blue bar) are next. In comparison, the climate impacts of grains and vegetable oils are pretty modest.
So based on this chart, it seems that the easiest, most climate-friendly food choice you can make is to cut red meat out of your diet. Just about any other way of getting calories is better for the atmosphere. And if you can shift from dairy to something else, all the better.
In a nifty bit of analytical work, the authors compared the GHG impacts of food choices with the impacts of "food miles" -- i.e., the distance that food travels from farm field to plate. Based on U.S. data, they estimate that food travels about 1,019 miles, on average, to get from the farm to the grocery aisle. But surprisingly, the climate impact of that journey is pretty minimal: Delivering food "from the farm or production facility to the retail store" -- the most common definition of food miles -- represented only 4 percent of total food-related GHG emissions.
That's not to say that eating local isn't important. But given the outsized climate impacts of beef, it does suggest that subtle shifts in food choices can have a bigger climate benefit than major shifts towards a local diet. In fact, the authors calculate that shifting just 12 percent of your meat and dairy calories to veggie-based foods has the same climate benefit as going 100 percent local for all food purchases.
Still, going veggie and local is better than doing just one or the other. Which is all the more reason why a locally-grown tomato is a wonder of the sustainable world.
Ask Umbra on her hotness, corporate gift baskets, and more
Ask Umbra on canned and frozen foods
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
Comments
View as Flat
joeblueskies Posted 7:42 am
05 Jun 2008
Plus, the food value would be very different as well. The nutritional profile of grass-fed animals is quite preferential to the industrial model.
All that aside, most of the beef produced in America is fed primarily on grain for all or a substantial part of its life, so this is quite good information. But its nice to know we have choices.
Bacon, the gateway meat.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:48 am
05 Jun 2008
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 8:31 am
05 Jun 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:37 am
05 Jun 2008
However I have scaled down such that the meat is the garnish, rather than the meal itself.
I really took this TED talk to heart.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/17/223829/210
______
Although I had already found it before David posted it, and listened to it on my Ipod.
http://www.phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/vie ...
Actually I'm finding that podcasts are pretty damned useful :P
Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow are good daily staples.
http://www.phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/vie ...
http://www.phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/vie ...
Anyone got any suggestions for more.
http://greyfalcon.net/podcasts.png
Permalink
billgee Posted 9:54 am
05 Jun 2008
For something a little more recent try McGibben's End of Nature.
Interesting article but does it go far enough.
Its a wonder we can even feed ourselves - Bob Something
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:11 am
05 Jun 2008
Indeed, distillers grain production in the 2007/08 marketing year, according to FAPRI, should account for more than 10% of corn used as animal feed. Most of that goes to feeding cattle, whereas a significant percentage of the normal feedcorn the nation produces goes to feeding hogs and poultry.
Why is that relevant to the "carbon footprint" debate? Because, effectively, the carbon credit that corn-ethanol gets (i.e., a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases on a life-cycle basis compared with gasoline) can be attributed almost entirely to the share of the fossil-fuel inputs required to grow corn and make ethanol that are allocated in the life-cycle models to distillers grain. Without that "by-product credit", there would be almost no difference in life-cycle emissions between ethanol and gasoline, according to a study by Jason Hill et al. published two years ago.
Thus, ironically, when you eat meat from cattle fed with a large dose of distillers grain (various government agencies suggest that the by-product can be used in ratios of up to 40% in the diet of growing and finishing cattle), you may be contributing to GHG emissions, but you are also, in effect, enabling the corn-ethanol industry to continue claiming that its main product, ethanol, is helping to reduce the carbon footprint of transport.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:12 am
05 Jun 2008
Interesting, chicken, fish, eggs beat fruit and vegetable. Never seen that before.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:08 pm
05 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:20 pm
05 Jun 2008
Adding to Ron's point, roughly 70% of the food value is lost when you use corn for ethanol. The distillers grains can only be eaten by cattle. It's like reducing food crop yields 70%.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:29 pm
05 Jun 2008
But not only cows. For more than one reason.
It has not been observed thus far that the graph that BioD blew up apparently was drawn with reference to the way animals imprisoned in the meat industry are actually raised. It should be pointed out that the prevailing CAFO system ("concentrated animal feeding operation," though many interpret the C as "confined") is not at all the way raising animals for meat must be done. And presumably the "GHG emissions per calorie" graph would look different, if CAFOs were abolished.
Oddly, neither Grist nor Gristmill nor Tom Philpott himself seems to have noticed this recent anti-CAFO editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/31/opinion/31sat4.html.
Cows and pigs suffer a great deal in CAFOs. But so do chickens and fish. If, for (excellent!) environmental reasons, we choose to stay away henceforth from cows and pigs, we should be aware that simply targeting chickens and fish for our meat-eating pleasure, as BioD's subtle interjection might encourage us to do, is not at all problem-free.
Not so long ago, Jason Scorse regularly argued that environmentalists should logically and naturally include animal welfare among the fundamental causes for which they fight. And I admired him greatly for that. Sadly, he was so bashed and battered (but ever, I hope, unbowed), that at a certain point he ceased to say anything more on the subject.
That is not good. The connexion between environmentalism and animal-welfare advocacy should most certainly be raised, now and again. The fundamental environmentalist value is the well-being of all living creatures on Earth.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:44 pm
05 Jun 2008
In a recent episode of the Simpsons, Bart falls in love with a cow (?; named "Lou" -- ?), who is sent to a slaughterhouse; in the course of Bart's attempt to rescue Lou, we are taught some important information on how horrible slaughterhouses are:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/18243/the-simpsons-apocalypse-c ....
Then, it seems that the Canadian PETA people were able to persuade Kentucky Fried Chicken Canada to make two important concessions: first, their chicken meat must come from chickens slaughtered by gas asphyxiation (supposedly the least inhumane form of slaughter); secondly, they must serve a vegan chicken sandwich:
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6dNMYmKuBd ....
Thanks, Karen!
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 7:15 pm
05 Jun 2008
I do support certain environmental causes, but I am not "Mr Humanitarian" and I never had any problem with violence. In fact, I enjoy violence. So, if you make being a vegetarian a prerequisite to being a supporter of environmental issues, you push a bunch of us out of the boat - and we climb into a another one.
"The connexion between environmentalism and animal-welfare advocacy should most certainly be raised, now and again.T
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:54 pm
05 Jun 2008
I never said that environmentalists should be vegetarians. Jason Scorse said something to that effect, a while ago, and he got beat up and pounded to the floor for it.
So, you are a new-comer here. We already have a history about these things.
We do not know much about the battlecry, "Victory in Pattani!" Cf. though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency.
On top of that, once you start throwing around sentences such as, "I enjoy violence," you should not be surprised if people of any ilk, whether vegetarians or environmentalists or whatever, keep you paddling around in the water, requesting that you answer a few more questions, before they decide to haul you aboard the lifeboat.
"I do support certain environmental causes," you say. OK; but why some, and not others? Are you exclusively anthropocentric, with the milk of human kindness flowing for the sake of fellow human beings, or no further? Or, are you ethnocentric? Or, are you simply devoted to your country? Or, are you simply devoted to your family? Or, are you simply devoted to yourself?
And, wherever you draw that line, why do you think that environmentalists would want to welcome you as a friend and ally?
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:35 pm
05 Jun 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
NoImpactMan Posted 11:40 pm
05 Jun 2008
Not only that, I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons but I'm still not sure about the stay away from cows thing.
What about if the cows provide the fertilizer? In other words, what about biodynamic farming where the cows graze on grass, the farmer harvests the manure and uses it to fertilize the vegetables. What is the relative harm of cows versus synthetic fertilizers?
Come to think: the American Chemical Society might enjoy getting rid of the natural fertilizer available from cows, too.
All the best,
Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man
Permalink
joeblueskies Posted 12:49 am
06 Jun 2008
Interesting that the sub-title for this thread is "Still more reasons to eat local and lay off the beef". Well, a key part of eating local is learning to eat seasonally. And guess what one of the few food sources that is available fresh - with all that means for good nutrition and taste - on a year-round basis in the northern hemisphere? Hmmmmmmm.. less see now... Oh yeah - I got it - beef and dairy products! oh wait....
Bacon, the gateway meat.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:21 am
06 Jun 2008
So no, I don't support all environmental causes.
I think it is prudent to reduce our CO2 emissions because the evidence is strong - not conclusive, but strong - that it is heating up the atmosphere which is having an unpredictable impact on the climate. It's already unpredictable enough.
I also think that our dependency on oil has to be dealt with, because it is a rapidly diminishing resource. If the global economy remains dependent on it, then it will collapse. I saw what happens when a society collapses first hand and it's ugly. A global collapse would be uglier still.
As I said, if you make the boat small and only want people in it who agree with everything you say, you will get nowhere. As it is, given the diversity of cultures and peoples and states on the planet, dealing with this issue is going to be EXTREMELY difficult. And in the end, it is the poorest of the poor who will suffer most. Those include some of my friends, so yes, I am concerned.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:42 am
06 Jun 2008
MAD MAC,
thanks for your last comment; I follow pretty much everything you write, even if you are sketchy about which environmentalist causes you do not mind supporting, and which you mistrust.
Whatever those suspect causes might be, I leave it to others to defend them, myself knowing next to nothing about everything ... : )
I would be very interested in hearing more about what lies behind this sentence of yours: "I saw what happens when a society collapses first hand, and it's ugly." South Vietnam in 1975? Cambodia? Burma?
As I hope I made clear before, my style is not at all to impose a restrictive, exclusivist boat on people flailing about in the ocean, who are hoping they answer my inquisitorial questions right so that I might deign to pull them aboard.
All the same, it would be good if we understood one another. (And I think we each may be speaking for large groups of people sharing certain ethical concerns.) You say: "[I]n the end, it is the poorest of the poor who will suffer most." I think I know what you mean by that, and entirely agree; and I wish your friends all the best.
But, I would add, "The poorest of the poor, and the most helpless of the helpless, are already being slaughtered, cruelly, thoughtlessly, in countless numbers, by people who think they are entitled, for the sake of people who think they are entitled, every minute of every day."
Whether that is an environmental issue that everyone might accept, I have no idea. But there it is, it is true nonetheless.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
CyberBrook Posted 3:39 am
07 Jun 2008
It's increasingly clear that we need to engage in Eco-Eating (http://www.brook.com/veg) - it's better for our personal as well as public health, more compassionate for the animals, and more sustainable for our environment.
Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters at
http://www.brook.com/veg
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:49 am
07 Jun 2008
I was a professional soldier for 27 years.
So as you might guess, violence is not something I shy away from.
To answer the other part - Somalia. 1992 until my last treck in that neck of the woods - 2005.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
earthsong Posted 7:59 am
07 Jun 2008
Permalink
infp Posted 1:02 am
08 Jun 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:25 am
08 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Karen Orr Posted 7:30 am
08 Jun 2008
The Union of NoMeatNoHeat made the announcement during its anti-global warming drive. Many prominent politicians, such as the legislative speaker, the environment minister, and Taipei and Kaohsiung Mayors all pledged to become vegetarians.
The Union said 20 percent of the world's carbon emissions are created by the livestock industry, which is higher than the 15 to 18 percent produced by all the world's transportation vehicles.
The Union said if a person eats only vegetables for a whole year, roughly 1.5 tons of carbon emissions can be cut.
http://english.rti.org.tw/Content/GetSingleNews.aspx?Cont ...
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:05 am
08 Jun 2008
According to that chart, you'd be better off giving up fruits and veggies than chicken and eggs. You want to minimize impact? Eat minimally processed raw grains like the world's poorest do.
Karen,
Putting that number into some perspective, the world population grows by 75 million every year.
According to that FAO report, globally, most GHG from cattle is the result of land use change (carbon sink usurpation to create pasture etc).
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:29 am
08 Jun 2008
Meat-eating is NOT the way forward. Still less, encouraging it, or justifying it.
Also, please note that practically speaking, "dairy" and "chicken/fish/eggs" tend to find themselves together in the diets of most people.
Actually, it is a weird graph, the way things are combined. "Dairy" and "eggs" are regularly sold in the same vicinity, in US stores; and "fish" is often never eaten by people who regularly eat "chicken" and "eggs."
So let us not get too fancy with that Rationalization Finger.
Anyway, people who would base major dietary decisions on a simple, disgracefully unnuanced graph such as this are:
surely very few; and
not the kind that one could count on to lead an important social revolution.
So, everybody, it's the Poo-Poo Luau tonight at BioD's! Coco-locos on tap! Dress appropriately (fya know what a mean)!
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:12 am
09 Jun 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Cara_J Posted 1:44 am
10 Jun 2008
ACS publishes the journal ("Environmental Science & Technology") that the food-miles study was reported in. Hence the copyright.
Here are a few of the dozens of other journals published by ACS:
Bioconjugate Chemistry
Nano Letters
Journal of Physical Chemistry
Chemical Research in Toxicology
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
You get the idea.
If you want to know who funded the research, this will generally be stated in the "acknowledgments" section of the article. I haven't checked this one yet. (Don't be too quick to condemn anyone, though. I once did research funded partly by the ACS Petroleum Research Fund that had nothing at all to do with petroleum. In fact, the goal was improving solar cells.)
If you google the authors, you can find out more; for example, one of the authors of the study heads the Green Design Institute at Carnegie Mellon.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:25 pm
10 Jun 2008
Quoth the tragic poet's wise hero: "The best thing for us woe-smitten children of Earth is never to have been born; next best, to die as soon after birth as possible."
After all: No margaritas?; no pumpkin pie?; no Little White Dog? What, then, is the point of living? : )
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:28 pm
10 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 3:36 am
23 Jun 2008
My father-in-law doesn't like vegetables either...and he's a type-2 diabetic. I'm betting he'll have a leg or two amputated before he gives up fast food, soft drinks, factory-farmed meat, and white bread. Or maybe he'll never give them up at all.
My grandmother doesn't like breathing fresh air. So she's been hooked up to an oxygen tank for the past 20 years (between cigarrettes).
I suppose my father-in-law could've learned to eat whole wheat bread and my grandmother could've given up smoking...it was their choice. I really don't think "I don't like vegetables" is any kind of an argument for what we're debating here.
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:46 am
23 Jun 2008
My eating habits don't leave nearly the CO2 footprint that yours do. Do you know why? because I am living in a place VERY close to where my food is produced and that food is not being produced in a CAFO or anything else industrialized.
People eat meat. People have always eaten meat. Eating meat is a natural state for people to be in. Eating meat is not bad for the climate or the environment. It's not an honest arguement.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:59 am
23 Jun 2008
There was essentially no description of how the data for CO2e was found, and where the numbers came from. While I am sure that these numbers weren't made up, it appears as if the authors intentionally did not provide the citation.
Permalink