What you eat can make a difference in the fight against climate change
A landmark study analyzing land and sea food production worldwide may shed insight into how individual choices in eating can help the climate fight and how policy changes can further that momentum. Researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) and the University of Leeds looked at United Nations data for the year 2017 representing nearly 99% of global food production, noting not just greenhouse gas emissions but how such industries impact ecosystems and how much water use and waste are generated.
What they found included the obvious, like the beef industry’s massive impact on climate change. But researchers also found that pork production poses nearly just as much of a danger to the planet due to pig waste contaminating waterways. In some cases, food production varied in impact based on how industry practices vary by country.
Though Brazil produces 10% less beef than the U.S., its environmental impact was significantly worse. Both countries are among a handful—including China, Pakistan, and India—accounting for the largest food footprint globally. Those five countries make up half of that footprint alone.
U.S. soybeans were also seen as a more sustainable alternative to soybeans produced in many other countries. Practices that increase yields and limit soy’s impact means the U.S. leads the world in soy production yet with a substantially smaller impact than places like India, which ranks fifth in overall soy production but is two times less efficient.
Crops in general were a mixed bag depending on how widely they are being grown and how many resources they require. Prior studies found that many beans and cereal crops are incredibly sustainable.
Unfortunately, UCSB and University of Leeds researchers discovered in their analysis that common staples like rice and wheat were found to be just as damaging to the planet as cow’s milk and chicken. Researchers were surprised at the outcome of their study, with UCSB marine ecologist and lead author Ben Halpern admitting his findings made him shift his own diet. “I became a pescatarian years ago because of wanting to reduce the environmental footprint of what I eat,” Halpern said in a press release:
“But then I thought, I’m a scientist, I should really use science to inform my decisions about what I eat. That’s actually why I started this research project. And now that we have the results, I see that from an environmental perspective, chicken is actually better than some seafood. And so I’ve shifted my diet to start including chicken again, while eliminating some high-pressure seafoods like bottom-trawl caught cod and haddock. I am actually eating my words.”
Halpern, who directs UCSB’s National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, may be on to something with his fish consumption, however. According to another recent study, tinned fish may hold the secret to more sustainable eating when it comes to choosing which protein to consume. Researchers found that fish like Japanese anchovy, Atlantic mackerel, and Atlantic herring—sometimes known as sardines—generate minimal greenhouse gas emissions compared with chicken and even albacore tuna.
I know I’ve been eating more mindfully lately and adding more tinned fish to my diet certainly won’t be much of a sacrifice since I love the stuff. Something to consider in the UCSB and University of Leeds study is that researchers didn’t take into account personal gardens or individual hunting activity. Keeping your food more local, either through harvesting it yourself or buying from nearby farmers and meat producers, may hold yet another key to eating more sustainably. Even the U.N. believes that supporting small-scale farmers is a critical step in addressing myriad issues, from food insecurity to providing better opportunities to marginalized communities.
Shifting your own eating habits may feel like a small step in addressing climate change, but Halpern insists even small actions are important. “The individual choice of eight billion people adds up,” Halpern concluded.
No comments:
Post a Comment