http://www.esquire.com/features/cooking-perfect-steak
Aside from the ethical reasons that lead many people to abstain completely from eating meat, there are numerous environmental reasons to consider what the “footprint” of meat production is compared to that of non-meat alternatives. And, just as importantly, what the “footprint” is of the particular type of meat being eaten.
http://www.topnews.in/pay-higher-cost-water-after-overhaul-2264713
One way to look at this is to compare the resources (water and various forms of energy) required to produce meat versus that required to produce other types of food—meat’s ecological footprint.
At least one study has shown that a non-vegetarian diet is more of a resource drain than a vegetarian one is. For instance, Marlow et al found that a vegetarian diet utilized significantly less water, primary energy, fertilizer, and pesticides in comparison to the non-vegetarian diet. The biggest difference between the two diets was water usage: they found that a non-vegetarian diet required about 264 additional gallons of water a week for production in comparison to a vegetarian diet. Of note, though, is that the differences in the two diets resulted primarily from an inclusion of beef (versus other types of meat) in the non-vegetarian diet (p. 1701S).
The table below shows how three groups of food compare in terms of the calories that result in the actual food that’s eaten per each calorie of energy (fertilizer, etc) that is required to produce that food. While cereal grains and legumes provide more nutrient calories than the calories of energy that it took to produce them, “animal products” only return 0.01 or 0.05 of each calorie of energy that was used in production. (Fruits and vegetables also return less energy than went into them, but less so than animal products do.)
Nutrient Calories per Calorie of Primary Energy Input:
Cereal grains and legumes: 2-3 calories
Most fruits and vegetables: Approx. 0.5 calories
Animal Products: Approx. 0.01-0.05 calories
Source: Marlow, et al, “Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter?” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009: 89, p.1700S.
There is much more to say on this topic, but, as a meat-eater, for me the main takeaway is a change in mindset regarding eating meat: from seeing it as “basic” to seeing it more like how most people probably see driving a car: even though it can be nice to do, environmentally-speaking, it’s a luxury because it’s not sustainable on a mass scale. (I recognize the fact that, for vegetarians, this is pretty much all a mute point.)
And this isn’t a novel mindset globally. For a variety of reasons, the majority of people worldwide live primarily on a plant-based diet: an estimated two billion people mostly eat a meat-based diet, while an estimated four billion mostly eat a plant-based diet (Pimentel and Pimentel, 660S).
If this has piqued your interest, here are some recommendations for meat-eaters who would like to decrease their meat-eating “footprint.” There is absolutely nothing genius about these recommendations, but they can help get the creative juices flowing:
• Decrease meat consumption by using less meat and more legumes and vegetables in meat recipes, effectively making meat a less major component
• Replace beef with turkey or chicken in beef recipes because they require less energy input than beef does
• Learn how to make vegetarian recipes that are high in protein and have an “umami” flavor (savoriness), so meat feels less necessary
Stay tuned for recipes that are examples of these recommendations…
Sources:
Marlow, et al, “Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter?” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009: 89.
Pimentel and Pimentel, “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003: 78.
No comments:
Post a Comment