[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Vegetarian and 'healthy' diets may actually be worse for the environment, study find ScienceAlert... Advocates of vegetarianism including everybody's favourite Governator regularly point out how how harmful human consumption of meat is to the environment, but is opting for a fully vegetable-based, meat-free diet a viable way to cut down on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions? Nope according to a new study by scientists in the US or, at least, it's not that simple. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) say that adopting the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) current recommendations that people incorporate more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood in their diet would actually be worse for the environment than what Americans currently eat. "Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon," said Paul Fischbeck, one of the researchers. "Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken." If these findings seem surprising in light of what we know about the impact of meat on the environment, you're probably not alone. You're also not wrong meat production does take a high toll on the environment. But what we need to bear in mind is that the energy content of meat is also high, especially when compared to the energy content of many vegetables, which is why going on a salad diet is great for your waistline. Consuming less energy content means less you in the long run. But what if you don't want to lose weight? What if you just want to replace the same amount of energy you get from meat with energy from vegetables? Well, then, to put it very simply, you need to eat a lot of vegetables. And when you contrast meat and vegetables on their impact per calorie as opposed to by weight, veggies suddenly don't look quite so environmentally friendly. In the study, which was funded by CMU's Steinbrenner Institute for Environmental Education and Research and the sustainability-focused Colcom Foundation, the researchers examined three different scenarios in terms of their energy and water use, and the greenhouse gas emissions that stem from the growing, processing, and transporting of food involved. In the first scenario, the impact of food production on the environment could be lessened if people simply ate less of what they already do. Shifting from the current average US diet which is particularly high in calories to a reduced calorie intake designed to achieve 'normal' body weights for the population, rather than perpetuating the two thirds that are currently obese, would result in a 9 percent decrease in energy use, water footprint, and emissions. However, in a second scenario, keeping calorie levels the same but adjusting the foods eaten to incorporate USDA recommendations that people eat more vegetables, fruits, dairy, and seafood would see energy use increase by 43 percent, with the water footprint increasing by 16 percent and emissions by 11 percent. And the third scenario reducing calories while also shifting to the recommended foods takes a greater toll on the environment too, with increases in energy use, water footprint, and gas emissions of 38 percent, 10 percent, and 6 percent respectively. The researchers acknowledge that their findings may be somewhat surprising in light of the zeitgeist over meat's impact. "These perhaps counterintuitive results are primarily due to USDA recommendations for greater caloric intake of fruits, vegetables, dairy, and fish/seafood, which have relatively high resource use and emissions per calorie," they write in Environment Systems & Decisions. But controversial as the findings may sound, comparing the respective impact of different foods based on their calorie content isn't new or radical. "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," Tamar Haspel wrote last year for the Washington Post. "Calories are the great equaliser, and it makes sense to use them as the basis of the calculation." Inevitably, producing far greater amounts of foods like broccoli to compensate for the calories lost from meat and other high-energy food sources involves larger amounts of energy, water and emissions than any simple kilo-for-kilo comparison of environmental footprint allows. Take a look at the graphic here to see how the impact of foods is reordered when they're ranked by calorie content as opposed to by weight. "There's a complex relationship between diet and the environment," said Michelle Tom, one of the team. "What is good for us health-wise isn't always what's best for the environment. That's important for public officials to know and for them to be cognisant of these tradeoffs as they develop or continue to develop dietary guidelines in the future." Read these next: New study reveals 84% of vegetarians return to meat Kids eat 54% more fruits and vegetables if they have recess before lunch Vegetarian hot dogs found to contain traces of meat and human DNA Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
They say that cows farting causes more greenhouse gases to be emitted into the environment. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
|
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|