The Washington Times-Herald

Community News Network

March 12, 2014

Which foods are the worst for the environment?

(Continued)

Emissions Table

But there's another way to look at the same information. If you stop eating beef, you can't replace a kilogram of it, which has 2,280 calories, with a kilogram of broccoli, at 340 calories. You have to replace it with 6.7 kilograms of broccoli. Calories are the great equalizer, and it makes sense to use them as the basis of the calculation.

When you reorder the chart to look at climate impact by calorie, the landscape looks different. The ruminants still top the chart, but the monogastrics look a whole lot better. Low-calorie crops like broccoli don't do so well. Although beef still looks bad and beans still look good, pork and poultry are on a par with green vegetables. (Which means that a beef-and-leaf paleo diet is the worst choice going, environmentally speaking.)

The claim that vegetarianism is kinder to the planet also fails to consider a couple of kinds of meat that aren't on the Environmental Working Group's chart. Deer and Canada geese do active damage in the areas where they're overpopulated, and wild pigs leave destruction in their path wherever they go. Eat one of those, and do the planet a favor.

Most people, though, are most likely to get their food from the farm, and it's important to note that, although the chart attaches one number to each kind of food, farming styles vary widely and not all pork chops - or tomatoes, or eggs - are created equal. Unfortunately, it's all but impossible for us consumers to figure out the climate impact of the particular specimens on our dinner table, whether they're animal or vegetable.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, organic agriculture's CO2 emissions per acre are significantly less than those of conventional agriculture. But yields per acre are also generally lower, and that mitigates the savings. Counterintuitively, the strawberry you buy from the farmer down the road might have a bigger environmental footprint than the strawberry you buy from far away, where a large farm in an ideal climate may grow it more efficiently. But it might not. You can't know. It's maddening.

When it comes to meat, trying to eat responsibly presents a genuine conundrum: What's best for the planet is often what's worst for the animal. The efficiencies of modern conventional livestock farming do indeed decrease greenhouse gases, but they also require the confinement and high density that draw the ire of animal welfare advocates.

Growing an animal as quickly as possible decreases climate impact because it's that many fewer days (or weeks or months) the animal is here to pollute. Increasing feed efficiency likewise decreases the acreage devoted to growing the animal's food. Rich Pirog, senior associate director of the Center for Regional Food Systems at Michigan State University, has studied the environmental impact of various ways of raising livestock; he has co-authored studies of Iowa cattle and pigs. For beef, he found that feedlots, where cattle are kept at high densities and fed grain, beat pastures, where animals are allowed to graze, in the tally of environmental impact. (A study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science reached a similar conclusion.)

For pigs, there was some overlap in conventional farming and "niche" systems, in which pigs have deep bedding and outdoor access. Pirog says that "the most efficient niche producers were pretty comparable to the average conventional producers." There's less research on poultry, but what has been done indicates that chickens raised in confinement also use fewer resources.

Confinement equals efficiency, but confinement also equals, well, confinement. Although no farmers I've ever spoken with believe their animals are unhappy, many welfare-minded meat consumers (including me) prefer to support a system in which animals have elbow room and outdoor access; where cages aren't used, tails aren't docked and antibiotics aren't routinely administered.

There are other arguments, on both sides - so many that it's easy to pick the ones that make the case for whichever kind of agriculture you're inclined to support. Grass-fed cows don't compete for plants humans can eat, and animals grazing on non-irrigated pasture don't compete for water that could be used to grow food (true!), but grass digestion creates more methane than grain digestion (also true!). Grazing cattle on grasslands can sequester carbon in the soil, but improperly managed grazing can make things worse rather than better. Pollution from manure reservoirs on conventional farms can threaten water and crops, but manure in reservoirs, from animals in confinement, can be converted to energy by methane digesters. Then there's the price of meat, inevitably higher in less efficient systems.

The meat-vs.-other-meat debate is irrelevant to the committed vegetarian, but there are issues other than greenhouse gases in the meat-vs.-plant debate, too. The case for meat includes the ability of an animal to contribute constructively on an integrated farm (chickens help with pest control), the potential for turning food waste (spent grain, whey, expired dairy) into high-quality protein, and the ability to use grasslands, inappropriate for row crops, to produce human food (with grazing cows or goats).

The case for plants has to include their nutritional value. Carbon aside, broccoli beats pork, hands down. And it has to consider killing, which many plant eaters find unacceptable. While the moral implications are beyond the brief of a column devoted to matters of fact, we all have to acknowledge that agriculture is an animal-killing enterprise. Does the rat, poisoned because it's a threat to the grain stores, count for less than the pig, raised and slaughtered with care?

But let's go back to where we began, with greenhouse gases. Even if climate impact is your top priority, it's important to look at the food data in the context of other lifestyle factors. Eating beans is definitely better than eating beef. Driving a Prius is better than driving a Hummer. But one decision trumps every other - potentially by orders of magnitude - and that's how many children you have. No amount of bean-eating or Prius-driving will compensate for reproducing, and it's the childless, not the vegetarians, who are more likely to save the planet. Which doesn't mean that we should ignore the benefits of beans and Prii - or that we shouldn't have kids - it just means that we should acknowledge that human survival takes a climatic toll. Our obligation isn't to minimize our carbon footprint at the expense of all other considerations; it's to try to be prudent, taking those considerations into account.

There are many ways to do that, but no one label - vegetarian, local, organic - has the corner on responsibility. For me, animal welfare is important, and my take on meat is that we should eat less of it, pay more for it, use all of it, and know where it's from. But that's not the last word. There isn't a last word, which means there's not a lot of room for sanctimony. While I think we all need to pay attention, vegetarians shouldn't tell omnivores to eat quinoa instead of pork any more than omnivores should tell vegetarians to eat venison instead of quinoa.

         

 

 

Text Only
Community News Network
  • Lindley, Tom.jpg Is this a commercial for batting gloves or a baseball game?

    Major league baseball desperately needs to speed up the action. Here's a place to start: Nix the mind-numbing ritual of hitters who first adjust the right batting glove, then the left one, after every single pitch.
     

    August 21, 2014 1 Photo

  • The Simpsons still going strong

    The groundbreaking animation first hit the air Dec. 17, 1989, but the family first appeared on television in "The Tracey Ullman Show" short "Good Night" on April 19, 1987.

    August 21, 2014

  • Does Twitter need a censor?

    Twitter decided last year to make images more prominent on its site. Now, the social network is finding itself caught between being an open forum and patrolling for inappropriate content.

    August 21, 2014

  • Police chief resigns over racial slur repost to Facebook

    A repost on his personal Facebook page of a racially-charged comment by the original poster of a comedy video has forced the police chief of an Oklahoma city to resign his office.

    August 21, 2014

  • sleepchart.jpg America’s sleep-deprived cities

    Americans might run on sleep, but those living in the country's largest cities don't appear to run on much.

    August 20, 2014 1 Photo

  • Who should pay for your kids ACT?

    Thirteen states paid for 11th-grade students in all public high schools to take the ACT college admission test this year, with several more planning to join them in 2015.

    August 20, 2014

  • Pets.jpg Why do people look like their pets?

    As much as we might quibble over the virtues and vices of Canis domesticus, however, and over whether human nature is any better or worse than dog nature, even dog fanciers don't usually want to look like a dog.

    August 20, 2014 1 Photo

  • Ice bucket challenge trending up

    Internet trends are a dime a dozen these days. Everything from Tebowing to planking to the cinnamon challenge can cause a wave of social media activity that can last for weeks before fizzling out.

    August 19, 2014

  • Africa goes medieval in its fight against Ebola

    As the Ebola epidemic claims new victims at an ever-increasing rate, African governments in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia have instituted a "cordon sanitaire," deploying troops to forcibly isolate the inhabitants in an area containing most of the cases.

    August 18, 2014

  • Democrat? Republican? There's an app for that

    If you're a Republican, you might want to think twice before buying Lipton Iced Tea, and forget about Starbucks coffee. If you're a Democrat, put down that Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, and throw away the cylinder of Quaker Oats in your pantry.

    August 18, 2014