By Kerri-Ann Jennings, M.S., R.D., Associate Editor, Nutrition for EatingWell Magazine
If you’ve ever found yourself arguing about whether eating meat is healthy for you and the planet and, if so, which meat to eat, you now have some answers. The Environmental Working Group (EWG), which brought us the “Dirty Dozen,” a list of the 12 most pesticide-ridden fruits and vegetables, released a report yesterday showcasing the carbon footprint of 20 conventionally grown popular protein sources, from lentils to lamb.
To come up with the carbon impact, the EWG looked at the food’s full “lifecycle”—including the water and fertilizer to grow feed crops, transportation of the food and even the amount of food that’s wasted.
The biggest take-away: eat less meat and avoid wasting it (20% of edible meat ends up being tossed). Why should you care? The implications of this report are twofold—environmental and personal health. On the environmental side, the United Nations recently determined that livestock is one of the top contributors to the world’s most serious environmental problems. Going meatless can reduce water pollution, waste and greenhouse gases, and save energy, land and water. As for personal health, science shows that eliminating or cutting back on meat may improve blood pressure, decrease your risk of heart disease, lower cholesterol and help better manage your weight.
The EWG’s full list of 20 “meats and other protein” sources includes vegetables like broccoli and tomatoes that, while having a low carbon footprint also deliver very little protein (around 1 to 2 grams per serving). So to bring you the 5 best and 5 worst proteins, I’m sticking to the EWG’s abbreviated pocket-guide version and annotating with my own comments as a registered dietitian and associate nutrition editor at EatingWell Magazine. To find out what ranked best, worst and in between on the full list of 20 protein choices, click here.
1. Lamb
Lamb’s carbon footprint comes mostly from the methane the animals produce through digestion and manure and from the crops grown to feed them. The same is true of cattle (which is why beef ranks second in the list of top 5 carbon offenders), but since lambs produce less meat, the carbon footprint is greater per ounce. In fact, eating 4 ounces of lamb is equivalent to driving 13 miles, in terms of your carbon footprint.
What you can do: Lamb isn’t widely eaten in the U.S. and in terms of carbon emissions that’s a good thing. Keep eating it sparingly, according to the EWG.
2. Beef
Like lambs, beef cattle are ruminants and produce the same greenhouse gases while digesting their food. Conventionally grown beef cattle are also shipped during different stages of production, adding to their environmental toll.
What you can do: When you do choose beef, look for grass-fed and organic. While pricier than conventional, it’s a healthier choice for you and the environment. Grass-fed beef is richer in heart-healthy omega-3 fats. Plus, organic, grass-fed cattle are raised in a way that minimizes the carbon emissions from manure. The EWG also recommends avoiding processed beef products, such as sausage, since more processing means a bigger carbon footprint and the processed products are less healthy than unprocessed.
3. Cheese
I adore good cheese, so I was deeply saddened to see cheese come in at number 3. I was momentarily heartened, though, when I noticed that EWG had compared all the proteins’ carbon emissions per 4 ounces. That ends up being a little less than 3 servings of cheese! Which means that if you stick to a serving, it’s more equivalent to eating 2 eggs, in terms of environmental impact.
What can you do: Stick to a single serving (1.5 ounces for hard cheese)—plus using a sharply flavored cheese can help you get the maximum impact for less. The EWG also recommends choosing organic and low-fat cheese, when possible.
4. Pork
Pigs don’t produce methane while digesting their food, but their manure contributes greenhouse gases. Processing and cooking pork adds to its carbon footprint.
What you can do: The EWG recommends choosing pastured pork, when you can, and avoiding processed pork (yes, that means bacon).
5. Farmed Salmon
Fish feed and electricity on fish farms adds to the carbon footprint of the fish. So does shipping, which means that wild salmon also has a higher carbon footprint when it’s shipped by air to your market. But don’t forget that salmon also delivers heart-healthy omega-3s, so still aim to eat fish a few times a week.
What you can do: Look for wild salmon over farmed, when possible. And don’t snub light tuna and sardines—other sources of omega-3s that have lower carbon footprints.
1. Milk
On the abbreviated top 10 list, milk came in with the lowest carbon footprint (lentils were lowest on the list of 20). However, the EWG looked at the carbon footprint of 4 ounces of milk—that’s only half a serving. So a full cup would be twice as high.
What you can do: Look for milk from local dairies, which should cut some of the carbon footprint caused by shipping. Milk from organic and grass-fed cows will also cut down on some of the carbon emissions caused by raising cattle, suggests the EWG, while delivering the added bonus of extra omega-3s and no growth hormones.
2. Beans
Beans are a smart protein choice. They give you fiber and healthy nutrients, such as folate and iron, and are very low in saturated fat. They’re also one of the best choices for the planet. Unlike animal-based proteins, beans have fewer carbon inputs and outputs (with animal proteins, growing crops just to feed the animals significantly adds to their carbon footprint).
What you can do: Eat beans more often! If you want beans with the lowest carbon footprint, buy them dried, which skips the extra step of processing them.
3. Tofu
Tofu’s carbon footprint (roughly one-third that of beef) largely comes from growing the soybeans and then processing it into tofu.
What you can do: Tofu is a great choice, but keep in mind that if the label doesn’t say it is 100% USDA Certified Organic or non-GMO, there is a good chance it was made from genetically modified soybeans.
4. Eggs
Feeding chickens, and the energy used on poultry farms, adds to the carbon footprint of eggs. But as far as animal proteins go, eggs’ carbon footprint is relatively low. In addition to protein, eggs give you some vitamin D and lutein and zeaxanthin, which are good for eye health. Although eggs contain some saturated fat and cholesterol, eating one a day shouldn’t raise your cholesterol levels.
What you can do: For the lowest carbon footprint, the EWG recommends opting for organic and pastured eggs, from chickens that are given organic feed and are allowed to run around.
5. Chicken
Chicken is the best meat choice, but on the full list of 20 foods, chicken ranks 6th meaning that its carbon footprint is still higher than plant foods and tuna. From an environmental and health perspective, though, eating chicken is better than eating beef.
What you can do: Choose chicken more often than beef, pork or lamb. As with eggs, the EWG recommends choosing chicken that is organic and/or pastured.
What's your top consideration when buying meat and other protein sources?
By Kerri-Ann Jennings
Kerri-Ann, a registered dietitian, is the associate editor of nutrition for EatingWell magazine, where she puts her master's degree in nutrition from Columbia University to work writing and editing news about nutrition, health and food trends. In her free time, Kerri-Ann likes to practice yoga, hike, cook and bake.
Related Links from EatingWell:
Follow EatingWell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/eatingwell
Jacob Liberman, O.D., Ph.D.: Is Your Phone Ruining Your Eyesight?
Bottom line is I'm more into eating a more healthy diet, with focus on quality and proper proportion, then whether it's organic or not, or gene altered. BTW, nature constantly alters genes according to it's natural-selection rules, so why can't we do so with our rules? We've been doing it indirectly through selective breeding for centuries so just splicing it in directly isn't much different.
It's the other part of my carbon footprint that concerns me much more that will bring our world to it's survival knees. In addition the fisheries of our oceans are being wiped out by massive drift nets, that decimate fish breeding populations and capture/kill indescrimiately . So while wild salmon is slightly better, farm-raised salmon is better in this regards.
So thanks for the information that a cow is a major source of ungreen methane, perhaps since we can find effective ways to capture the gas, and burn it for fuel? See this site for additional proven technologies! http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/05/cow.methane/
Now excuse me, I have a nice juicy home-prepared hamburger to fix.
Part 2 of 2
We can't name one other "animal" our physical size that has even ONE Billion of them on this planet. What our higher intellect has enabled us to do is not only to survive well, but to over-thieve....in terms of numbers and lifestyle, to the risk of everything else, and finally to ourselves. And by our higher intellect we have learned to super-process foods to a point to over-appeal to our senses, that they lack the natural/proper balance of nurtrient and calories/portion.
So our response has to be in the short-term "carbon footprint" control-speak, but in the longer term it has to be about population control worldwide, and carbon/person levels in all forms. Note that as a country moves from underdeveloped to well developed the carbon footprint has a 7-fold growth....per person!
Now, least you accuse me of being an organic/sandaled hippie-type, let me assure you I'm not! I think pure organic is wasteful (lower yield per acre), and sometimes dangerous (using untreated animal waste is asking for ecoli troubles). All this talk about non-genetic altered foods being better is hogwash! I'm eating the food, not splicing it into MY genes!
Part 1 of 2
Also, does anyone really believe that a lamb with a stocking rate of 2.5 times of that of an average beef calf, really has that much worse a carbon footprint, given the fact that they eat a different type of forage than cattle and can graze alongside them to further stretch the carrying capacity of our pastureland? No. Also, does anyone really believe that beef grown in the midwest and shipped within the midwest for finishing, slaugthering and packaging has a worse footprint than organic CA strawberries in Manhattan in January? Hell no.
Furthermore, the predominant 'grain' supplement ruminants are given are not consumable by human beings. For instance, the husks of the very same soybeans that make up 'Silk' milk alternative serve as the protein supplement for range cattle. It would be wasted otherwise.
In conclusion, ruminants (despite their methane burps) are providing us with a tremendous resource that we could not otherwise use and would most certainly consume much more energy to manage.
Our bodies evolved to tolerate a varied diet to stave off starvation during times of scarcity, but this always took a toll on the body and it still does so today. Let's cut the bull and stop pretending that the hard times diet of greens and roots is best. Indeed, we are facing environmental issues, but a change of diet is not going to fix it and vegans tend to diminish not only their own quality of life, but harm children and others whom they influence or control with their fanatical beliefs.
Consume everything in moderation for a good, long, satisfying life. Trust your pallet. Let it tell you it's need. Don't be brainwashed by the fanatics. Feast now, but don't overeat. Share, don't waste. You only live once and will be feasted upon by nature if you don't get cremated. It's the circle of life.
Plants are living things too. What makes vegans think that their consumption choices are acceptable and other choices aren't?
also, it is definitely not your place to say that vegans have a lower quality of life or to call them fanatics. even if it is true that some parents can mistakenly malnourish their children with improper vegan diets, these cases are much less frequent than childhood obesity cases.
Childhood obesity is caused by reasons other than the consumption of meat, and vegan kids who have shakes, fries and cookies etc., don't look malnourished, but it doesn't mean they are getting what's best for their development. It is deceitful to compare by numbers, a minor abusive fringe group in this manner to the obese.
When you deprive yourself of the best, when you raise the toxicity in your body for a fanatical belief, you lower your quality of life. When you adhere to your extreme beliefs with such zeal, you're fanatic. It takes fanaticism to become a vegan.
Regarding vegan religious belief of not harming life, plants are living things too, as are all the tiny creatures we trample with every step we take. Vegans are also hypocrites.
As you note, junk food, restaurant food, and "prepared" foods of all kinds tend to be loaded with the three "suspects" I've named. If people ate real, whole foods, mostly cooked at home, in modest amounts (that's another thing -- Americans are eating 200 calories a day more than they did in 1970, and DOING less), the obesity epidemic would disappear.