The Environmental Cost of Meat

Continuing the thread from the last post, I want to shed some light on the environmental cost of our diet.  Here's a link to a 3 year old report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.  Let me highlight a few key points.

"The lifestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

1. Livestock production accounts for 70% of all agricultural land and 30% of the land surface of the planet.

2. Massive amounts of deforestation in the Amazon is dedicated toward livestock (as feedcrop or pasture)

3. The consequence:  the livestock sector is reponsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalents.  This includes methane from the animals, nitrous oxide from manure and ammonia which leads to acidification of ecosystems.

The U.N. report concludes that greenhouse emissions from livestock are greater than all forms of human motor transportation!  That means that the world's appetite for meat causes more damage to the environment than all the planes, trains and automobiles in the world!

Climate Change & Your Dinner

World leaders have been meeting this week at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.  Discussions include various methods of curbing greenhouse emissions including the use of green technology; solar and wind energy.  What do you think our leaders will be eating in Copenhagen?  Does it matter?  Evidence suggests that a leading cause of climate change may actually be your diet!

Let me direct your attention to this recent article.  The authors state:

"A policy of reducing consumption of red meat in wealthy countries and encouraging a limited consumption increase in poor countries would benefit the climate as well as human health."

At first glance, this may be seem to be liberal jargon or crazy ideas propagated by vegetarians bent on pushing their agenda.  But these authors are hardly alone in their assessment.  A study published in the May 2009 edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition echoes this sentiment.  The study presents evidence of agriculture as a primary source of greenhouse gases.  They suggest "changes in the diet toward more plant-based foods" as well as reduction in beef and pork consumption in order to reduce our influence on climate change.

Is it really possible that our meat consumption has a significant effect on the climate?  Unfortunately, yes.  I'll provide some more data in the coming weeks.

Book Review: The World is Fat

The World is Fat: The Fads, Trends, Policies, and Products That Are Fattening the Human Race, Barry Popkin. (ISBN 978-1-58333-313-6)

Everyone knows that there are a lot of overweight people around.   While the causes may seem somewhat obvious, the truth is, there are many variables that contribute to obesity.  Sure- we eat too much, we eat the wrong things and we don't exercise.  But Popkin takes a deeper look and examines the changes in society, the food industry and our habits that all contribute to our growing waistlines.  He spends a fair bit of text bad mouthing soda (rightfully so), but perhaps the most interesting part is his take on several "trusted authorities" on nutrition.

"The American Dietetic Association is funded by many food companies and, I argue, views nutrition through the lens of the food industry. As the accrediting body for registered dietitians and university programs, the association has a great deal of power over its profession... this association has been working with the soft drink industry and ignoring the negative effects of their products.

At a time of great interest in and controversy about the role of soft drinks in our schools and our lives- and with numerous meta-analyses and other studies on this topic- they have retained old, and what I think are somewhat dangerous guidelines.  They often cite industry-funded studies but seldom cite opponents of their positions and meta-analyses.  This organization uses research biased toward the food company or industry that is funding them."

Popkin goes on to cite questionable tactics of the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation.  Admirably, Popkin doesn't simply thrash these groups for their dubious relationships with the food industry.  Rather, he points out the difficulty in discerning truth.  Science and industry have merged and there are serious consequences.