Michael Pollan was interviewed on Fresh Air (NPR.org to listen) yesterday, and--as usual--did a great job of discussing why the WAY food is raised matters re: GHG and other ecological and health reasons. It is not just "meat vs veggies." Soy- and corn-based foods from industrially-farmed commodity crops (much of what you find in GreenStar) are not raised ecologically on many counts. MIXED farms-- with plants and animals feeding and fertilizing each other--can be much more ecological.
I personally don't eat red meat, but animals that evolved as grazers that actually feed primarily on grass (which they fertilize as they walk from spot to spot) are not nearly the problem that our current meat (beef, pork, poultry) production poses with its petroleum-based industrial agriculture. And a return to small scale mixed crop farms could happen in most parts of the US--except places where folks maybe shouldn't be living, like former deserts (where irrigation and air conditioning gobble up resources). In any case, we tend to eat much more protein than we need: I like the image of a serving the size of a deck of cards. Love those local eggs with ORANGE yolks (full of Vitamin D) from chickens running in the sunshine around eating bugs! Margaret On Oct 21, 2008, at 5:13 AM, Megan M. Gregory wrote: > Eric, > > You raise a great point on the need to really think through the > entire life cycle of the food that we eat. I am passing along some > articles that I've come across on the climate impacts of food > choices that address the question of if it is better to "eat locally > or eat differently." There has certainly been quite a bit of > discussion on this listserv and even in the mainstream media about > eating local. There are certainly many reasons to eat local. One > of the most commonly cited ones is reducing the "food-miles" from > where the food was produced to where it is purchased and consumed, > and thus (supposedly) reducing greenhouse gas emissions and climate > change impacts associated with transport of the food. > > These articles, however, show that "food-miles" from the farm or > production facility to the point of purchase by consumers actually > forms a very small part of the climate or greenhouse gas impacts of > what we eat (about 4%). Thus, those who are concerned about the > effects of their food choices on global climate change must also > consider factors such as: > -- the agricultural and industrial practices used to grow and > harvest the food (83% of GHG impacts) > -- the total supply-chain transportation (such as transport of feed > to animal production facilities, etc.) (11% of GHG impacts) > > When these are taken into consideration, a convincing case can be > made that for limiting GHG emissions, a dietary shift away from red > meat and dairy and towards vegetables and grains is probably the > most important thing that an environmentally conscious consumer can > do -- even more important than buying local. > > ---------------------------------- > > The attached article, "Is it better to eat locally, or to eat > differently?" is a transcript of an NPR program I heard with a > scientist from Carnegie Mellon University. The second article, "Do > Food Miles Matter?" ( > http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2008/apr/science/ee_foodmiles.html) > > is the "newsfeed" on the study he did from the journal > Environmental Science and technology, in which it was published. > Finally, the PDF of the whole article, "Food-Miles and the Relative > Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States," can be found > at: > http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/2008/42/i10/pdf/es702969f.pdf > . > > Basically, the gist of the study (as far as I can tell) is that for > reducing greenhouse gas impact of food choices, buying local is only > one part of the solution. Actually, transportation from producer to > retailer accounts for only 4% of the total GHG impact of foods (all > transportation accounts for 11%). More significant are the > agricultural and industrial practices that go into growing and > harvesting food, which are responsible for 83% of the GHG impacts of > food. This study differs from many others on GHG emissions and food > choices by considering not only CO2, but other GHGs like CH4 > (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide), which are emitted in smaller > quantities much are much more potent than CO2. By far the most GHG- > intensive foods are red meat and dairy, largely due to the methane > emissions from ruminant digestion and manure, and the nitrous oxide > emissions from decomposing fertilizers and manure. According to > this author, shifting calories toward vegetables has the biggest > impact on reducing GHG emissions. Supposedly, if you shift calories > from red meat and dairy to vegetables just one day per week you save > more GHG gas emissions than if you eliminated ALL food delivery > miles, according to his analysis. > > Of course, this is not to say not to eat local ... there ARE GHG > savings as well as other benefits, like knowing the farmer's > production practices (which influence soil, water, animal and human > health, etc.), and supporting local rural development. However, I > think that it is good for us to really look at the data and the > complete life-cycle impact of our consumption in order to make the > choices and changes that will have the greatest positive effects on > the environment and society. > > Thanks to all for providing a space for dialogue on living more > sustainable lifestyles! > > Sincerely, > > Megan Gregory > > -- > Megan M. Gregory > > Graduate Research Assistant, The Agroecology Lab > Cornell University > Ithaca, NY 14853 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (847)287-7794 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Hi folks, >> I recall having seen on this list, a year or so ago, a reference to >> a popular article or two that purported to compare the >> comprehensive impacts of foods that were raised locally with those >> shipped from afar. The point was to demonstrate that it is not >> always obvious what is less environmentally damaging to produce >> locally or trade from a distance. If anyone recalls that >> reference, I would appreciate a reminder. I have a faculty friend >> at Bucknell who is assembling a collection of popular press food >> policy related materials and would like to use one on that topic. >> Thanks, Eric >> Eric Clay, M.Div., Ph.D. >> Community Coach >> Shared Journeys, Inc. >> 832 North Aurora Street >> Ithaca, NY 14850 >> 607-592-6874 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) >> SHARED JOURNEYS >> That all may flourish and none be excluded >> **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your >> destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out >> (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002 >> ) >> _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
