A perusal through a 2009 paper published in American Society of Nutrition[1] provides a quick reminder that American eating habits are bad not only for an over-burdened healthcare system, but for our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions tally. While CO2 is ever in the limelight when we think of GHG players, the respective 60% and 50% contributions to global emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, both potent greenhouse gases, from agricultural practices constitute a large portion of total anthropogenic climate forcing. Although the annual inputs of both gases are relatively small when compared to CO2, the Global Warming Potentials of each gas are orders of magnitude higher than that of CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. When considering that methane production from industrialized beef operations (politely referred to as “enteric fermentation”) comprise the main source of anthropogenic methane input to the atmosphere, the question arises: Is the current rate of global meat production worth it’s toll on the environment? More specifically, do the people of the United States demand too much beef than may be healthy for the environment, and for themselves?
To answer that, the relationship between meat consumption and human health needs also be addressed. A simple look at T. Colin Campbell’s findings outlined in The China Study, accepted by many to be the most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted, should make anyone question just how beneficial the beloved meat rich diet is for human health. Major correlations between high meat Western diets and a myriad of adverse health effects including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer are unveiled in The China Study.
Those warning against meat intensive diets usually recommend eating regiments high in plant based foods. The previously mentioned 2009 study which quantified specific foods’ associated GHG emissions found that domestic vegetable production contributed many times fewer CO2 equivalents than most meat- with beef ranking the worst among foods studied. To bring animal justice into the picture, one needs only to remember a point made by New York Times writer Mark Bittman in his 2007 TED talk, as he referred to the global meat industry: “There is no way to treat animals well when you’re killing ten billion of them a year”. The combination of these factors makes a narrow but nonetheless compelling argument for the transition away from a meat based diet. But with fads like the popular meat heavy Crossfit Paleo diet, the rampant availability of cheap meat in fast-food chains, and federal subsidy of US cropland reserved for grain production to support the meat animal industry, there seems to be no end in sight for the meat rich American diet. It’s hard to envision a circumstance in the near future that lends itself to transition away from such extravagant meat consumption while the opposing trend is supported by an inflated demand for meat- a demand that exists because our system fails to account for the externalized costs associated with its production. Once again, it seems that we have set ourselves up for a lose-lose scenario in which both the environment and the consumer are ultimately harmed. Getting to know what the goals of our current agricultural system are (a look at The Farm Bill is a good place to start) may shed some light on how this paradox came to be.
But the good news is: the good stuff is out there. Nutritious, relatively low-carbon footprint foods are available for anyone seeking them. Like many other environmentally harmful practices espoused by modern society, the up front costs to support the more sustainable alternative may be a little higher. But the extra dollars are economic votes for an infrastructure that supports less costly lifestyles, in the end. Choosing to buy fewer factory-farmed animal products and more plant-based foods should provide you with the double whammy of knowing you’re eating better for yourself, and for the environment.
[1] Carlsson-Kanyama, A., and Gonzalez, A.D. 2009. Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 89(5): S1704-S1709.