More threads by David Baxter PhD

David Baxter PhD

Late Founder
Your meals are speeding up climate change, but there's a way to eat sustainably
by Emily Chung, CBC News
Dec 04, 2018

5 tips for trimming your culinary carbon footprint that don't involve going vegan

cache.php

Many everyday foods generate a surprising quantity of greenhouse gas emissions. (pm_video/Shutterstock)

Your supper last night may have generated as many greenhouse gas emissions as driving to the next town in your car. At best, it was probably the equivalent of a couple of kilometres.
The good news is that it's quite easy to eat more sustainably. Science shows there are lots of ways to reduce your dietary carbon footprint without going vegan — or even giving up any foods you enjoy.

Bonus: They'll probably save you money, too.

Food production is responsible for up to a third of greenhouse gas emissions around the world. A recent blog post from the World Resources Institute, a global sustainability think-tank, warns that agriculture alone could raise the Earth's average temperature more than 1.5 C above that in pre-industrial times if we don't change our eating habits.

Many everyday foods generate a surprising quantity of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, a breakfast sandwich with bacon, sausage and egg that you picked up on the way to work would have generated the equivalent of about 1,441 grams of carbon dioxide, reports a recent study by University of Manchester researchers Namy Espinoza-Orias and Adisa Azapagic. That's about the same as a Honda Civic sedan driving nine kilometres.

cache.php

Food production is behind up to a third of greenhouse gas emissions around the world. (Ilya Naymushin/Reuters)

You see, a lot of energy went into making that sandwich, from feeding the pigs and harvesting the wheat to refrigerating the finished product until you can buy it.

"It all adds up, little by little, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions," said Azapagic, a professor of sustainable chemical engineering. "So that when you put a sandwich together, with all the ingredients, plus the packaging, plus the transport, plus the preparation of the sandwiches, of course, then you get a relatively high carbon footprint."

Things get worse if your meal contains red meat — a seven-ounce steak is equivalent to driving 50 kilometres, based on calculations by the non-profit Environmental Working Group.

And it adds up. Using a 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey of more than 10,000 people, a recent University of Waterloo study looked at the "global warming potential" of different types of diets. It found that in a year, omnivores generate emissions equivalent to driving nearly 15,000 kilometres (that's more than three times the distance between Vancouver and Montreal). That's more than double the amount generated by vegetarians or vegans.

cache.php


Eating more locally produced and organic foods — advice given by some environmental groups — won't necessarily make a difference, studies show.

But here are five simple things that research shows can reduce your carbon footprint from food.

1. Waste less food
That's right — you don't even have to change what or how much you eat to make a difference. Just throw less away.
According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, food waste is responsible for about eight per cent of total human-caused greenhouse gas emissions — almost as much as road transportation.

cache.php

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, food waste is responsible for about eight per cent of total human-caused greenhouse gas emissions — almost as much as road transportation. (Jacy Schindel/CBC)

Not only are emissions generated from growing, processing and distributing food, but when it decomposes, food generates methane, a greenhouse gas that's 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of trapping heat in the atmosphere.

The recent University of Waterloo study found that avoidable household food waste was responsible for 9.5 to 15 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from food. Lead author Anastasia Veeramani, who conducted the study while she was a graduate student, said she was astonished by the amount of food waste.
She comes from Siberia, where food is relatively scarce, and said seeing how food waste affects the environment "was quite a revelation."

Reducing food waste wouldn't just help the environment. It could also save money.

The average Canadian household wastes about $1,100 worth of food (about 140 kilograms) per year, according to 2017 research by the National Zero Waste Council.

Veeramani, who now runs Nu Grocery, a zero waste grocery store in Ottawa, recommends being more aware of what you consume, only buying what you need and using up the leftovers. Careful meal planning can help, as can freezing food such as bread, sliced fruit or meat if you know you won't be able to eat it before it spoils, recommends the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

2. Prepare your own meals at home
Not all sandwiches are made equal, and the ones you grab from the fridge at the corner store may be significantly increasing your emissions.

"If you make a sandwich at home, you will normally halve the carbon footprint of your sandwich," said the University of Manchester's Azapagic.

cache.php

A prepared sandwich has about double the carbon footprint of a sandwich prepared at home. (Neil Hall/Reuters)

That's largely because of increased food waste. Twenty per cent more food is thrown out in the preparation of a commercial sandwich, the study found. And then there's the energy needed to refrigerate the ingredients and the finished sandwich, along with operating the sandwich assembly line.

If you don't have time to prepare your own food all the time, Azapagic recommends going to the deli counter and buying a freshly prepared sandwich.

3. Eat less
Many Canadians eat more than they need to. In 2014, 20.2 per cent of Canadian adults were obese, and 40 per cent of men and 27.4 per cent of women were overweight, Statistics Canada reports.

cache.php

Many people are eating more food than they need. ( Trent Penny/The Anniston Star/Canadian Press)

Veeramani found that omnivores, who made up 30 per cent of the population in her study, ate 20 per cent more calories on average than the amount considered "optimal" by Health Canada.

"Reducing overconsumption of calories" is the top recommendation in a 2016 report from the World Resources Institute on how to shift diets around the world for a "sustainable food future."

Veeramani recommends that people make a conscious choice to eat the amount that they need, rather than the amount that they want.

"It's better for health, it's better for the environment."

4. Eat less meat, dairy and eggs
Worried you're not getting enough protein? Unless you're vegan, you're probably worrying unnecessarily.
Veeramani's research found that people eating all other diets — including vegetarians — were consuming 150 per cent to 250 per cent of the recommended level of protein, and 60 to 80 per cent of it was dairy, eggs, fish and meat.

That's been backed up by other studies. According to the World Resources Institute, the average person in more than 90 per cent of the world was eating more protein than they needed in 2009, and the proportion of animal-based protein in people's diets has been growing dramatically.

cache.php

Producing beef uses 20 times the land and generates 20 times the emissions as producing beans, per gram of protein, according to the World Resources Institute. (Enrique Marcarian/Reuters)

This is a problem, because animal-based proteins consume more resources and generate more greenhouse gases than beans, nuts and other plant-based proteins. Producing beef uses 20 times the land and generates 20 times the emissions as producing beans, per gram of protein, the World Resources Institute reports.

Veeramani said you can make a difference by eating smaller portions, fewer meat-based meals per day or week, or even switching from beef to other meats like pork or chicken.

"Any reduction will improve your carbon footprint," she said. "It doesn't always have to be a full switch to a completely new diet."

5. Avoid greenhouse-grown veggies
While meat and cheese might be bad for the environment, veggies aren't totally off the hook, either.

The sandwich study found that whether or not you include tomatoes between your bread slices can have a big impact on emissions. That's because most tomatoes grown in the UK, where the study was done, are grown in greenhouses that use lots of energy for heating and lighting.

cache.php

Locally grown greenhouse tomatoes generally have a much higher carbon footprint than imported field tomatoes. (Dawn J. Sagert/The Sioux City Journal/Associated Press)

In that case, one kilogram of tomatoes generates 10 times its own weight in emissions, Azapagic said.
Canadian tomatoes are typically greenhouse-grown as well.

That's one reason buying local isn't necessarily better for the environment — imported field tomatoes have a much lower carbon footprint, even when transportation is included.

But tomatoes aren't the only questionable vegetable. U.S. food writer Tamar Haspel recently argued that we should be rethinking how much lettuce we eat. That's because it has almost no nutritional value, but requires lots of energy to be grown, shipped and refrigerated.

"I think maybe we should start thinking about it as a resource-intensive, and maybe a luxury food," she told CBC Radio's The Current.

Veeramani's study also flagged greenhouse-grown lettuce as having a big carbon footprint, not just from the way it's grown, but also because it spoils easily. Based on waste amounts in Canada, the study reports, well over half a kilogram of lettuce is thrown out for every kilogram we eat.

Veeramani said "there's no universal solution" to lower your carbon footprint from food.

Her top recommendation? "Just being conscious of what you consume."
 

GaryQ

MVP
Member
"If you make a sandwich at home, you will normally halve the carbon footprint of your sandwich," said the University of Manchester's Azapagic.

And save about 90% of the cost of a store bought sandwich :coffee:
 

Daniel E.

daniel@psychlinks.ca
Administrator
Sounds like Elvis knew best :coffee: If we add maple syrup to the banana PB sandwiches, we have a Canadian winner!
 

Daniel E.

daniel@psychlinks.ca
Administrator
From The New York Times article:

In 1900, two-thirds of our protein came not from animals but from plant foods. By 1985, that statistic was reversed, with more than two-thirds of our protein coming from animals, primarily beef cattle. They consume up to eight pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat and release tons of greenhouse gases in the process while their saturated fat and calories contribute heavily to our high rates of chronic diseases.

A Guide to Sustainable Eating - NYTimes

Related articles:

Eating local or organic won't do much to combat climate change. Here's what will.

Eat more plants, fewer animals
 

Daniel E.

daniel@psychlinks.ca
Administrator
The position of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association:

OpEd: The Real Whopper | Dairy Herd Management
April 18, 2019

The truth is beef production in the United States has become much more efficient and environmentally sustainable over the past few decades. Compared to 1977, today’s American beef farmers and ranchers produce the same amount of beef with 33 percent fewer cattle. Improved efficiency and animal well-being mean a 16 percent lower carbon footprint and fewer natural resources used for every pound of beef produced...

Research shows that if every American went vegan, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would only drop 2.6%. At the same time, our national diet would provide insufficient nutrients to feed the U.S. population and result in increased use of synthetic fertilizer, as well as increased soil erosion.

If all these politicians and elite journalists want to replace delicious and nutritious American-produced beef in their diets with heme and soy, we wish them the best (along with our sympathies.) But to claim that doing so will have any significant impact on global climate is ultimately the real whopper in this debate.
 

David Baxter PhD

Late Founder
I can't take those vegan milk substitutes though.

When I was getting chemo, I became decidedly lactose intolerant and I tried almond milk and similar products. They were okay when it was all my body would tolerate but as soon as possible I went back to real milk. At the end, I was almost not having the fake milk at all except for a bit in cereal. I wasn't able to drink coffee at the time and I don't take milk in tea so it was really only cereal that I needed something for.
 

David Baxter PhD

Late Founder
I've been gradually reducing beef intake for several years, initially out of preference more than principle or the environment. I'll still have an occasional small steak and I do like burgers or meatloaf from time to time but I've gradually switched over to more poultry and fish (and some pork). And more recently with all the salmonella scares I've cut back on chicken too.

It's probably healthier for my GI system anyway. I'm not certain, to be honest, how much better chicken or pork is in terms of environmental damage, but I think beef is still the worst offender.
 

David Baxter PhD

Late Founder
I'm not certain, to be honest, how much better chicken or pork is in terms of environmental damage, but I think beef is still the worst offender.

How the new plant-based burgers stack up to beef | CBC News

Beef is considered taxing on the environment because of the resources it takes to grow crops to feed cows. Cows also produce the greenhouse gas methane, mostly through burps.


Though grazing animals can play a positive role in the ecosystem, that's not how most animals in the U.S. are raised, said Christopher Field, who is at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and who knows the founder of Impossible Foods. But he noted people don't have to give up meat entirely to make a difference, and that pork and chicken have much smaller environmental footprints than beef.

From that same article:

As with many questions about diet, it depends. For better or worse, patties from Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods can be nutritionally similar to beef.

Beyond Meat's 4-ounce patty is listed at 270 calories, while Impossible Foods' is listed at 240 calories. Ground beef's nutritional profile can range, but a similarly sized patty with 80 per cent lean meat has around 290 calories.
Protein content is about the same, while other nutrients vary. Some may like that the plant-based patties have fibre, but dislike that they're higher in sodium.

For overall diet, what matters more might be how the patties are served, whether it's at Burger King, White Castle or elsewhere.

At Umami Burger in New York, for example, a burger with two Impossible patties, cheese and fixings tops 1,000 calories. Few would call it healthy, especially if served with fries and a soda.

"People are going to be fooling themselves into thinking these are not just better, but healthy," said Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, an obesity expert at the University of Ottawa.

People also may not realize the saturated fat content can be similar to beef burgers, he said.

At a Sobeys in Toronto, two Beyond Meat patties cost $7.99, roughly double the price of two ground beef patties. Impossible burgers aren't yet available in grocery stores.
 

Daniel E.

daniel@psychlinks.ca
Administrator
At a Sobeys in Toronto, two Beyond Meat patties cost $7.99, roughly double the price of two ground beef patties. Impossible burgers aren't yet available in grocery stores.

Similarly expensive at my closest grocery store (Safeway): Beyond Meat for 2 patties was $6.99 US ($9.42 Canadian). They are more filling/substantial though than most veggie burgers at the grocery store.

(For those needing more omega-3s, salmon burgers/patties can be healthier and cheaper.)
 
Replying is not possible. This forum is only available as an archive.
Top