Food Carbon Footprint

Anna Lappé’s book, Diet for a Hot Planet, discusses the impact that meat consumption has on the planet and our environment. It discusses how the global food system is a major contributor to climate change, producing as much as one-third of greenhouse gas emissions. She writes about how the way we farm, what we eat, and how our food gets to our tables all

minimize ecological footprints and gain awareness behind the truth of our food routes. Presently, it is very easy to get a variety of different flavours in one supermarket; trinidadian eggplants, chinese bitter melon, hungarian hot peppers and many other delectable products from around the world, but what many don’t realize is that it takes on average 1,500 to 3,000 miles and 250,000

Locavorism’s environmental benefits are referenced frequently by its supporters . “Food miles” — the distance your food has traveled before it reaches your plate — are a commonly used term. Because of the substantial amount of fuel

Saving the planet is a topic that is taken seriously by a huge part of this planet’s population. James McWilliams argument, “The Locavore Myth: Why Buying from Nearby Farmer Won’t Save the Planet,” explains why people need to buy food from people other than the local farmers. He believes that the focus of the locavore movement on transportation is wrong because the real problem lies within the energy-hogging factors in food production. McWilliams also went on to explain that another mistake that the locavore movement made was how food miles were calculated. He believes that a truck with 2,000 apples driving 2,000 miles would consume the same amount of fuel as a truck that carried 50 apples to a local shop only 50 miles away. James McWilliams states that “The critical measure here is not food miles but apples per gallon.” He also argues that taking meat out of a person’s diet would cut down on the carbon footprint of his or her dinner because it takes less energy to bring plants, rather than meat, to the table.

In her article she writes about how the earth is being affected by all the pollutions and greenhouse gases that are being emitted. She explains about how the food industry contributes by “Most produce is shipped many miles before it is sold to consumers, and shipping our food for long distances is costly in both the amount of fossil fuel it uses and the greenhouse gases it produces” (93). This adds to her argument that buying local will help reduce the amount of air pollution from transporting food. In an article by Environmental Board the authors claim “If you buy locally, you protect and make the environment more sustainable because you don’t have to truck the food thousands of miles across the country or import it from other countries which takes a lot of energy. It is a lot better for the climate and region” (1). This information provides evidence to support her theory in which buying local can help reduce harmful

The graph presents the fact that the production of food products create the large majority of emissions. For example, gas emission released from the transportation of red meat is dwarfed by the amount used in its production. This shows that eating local is not a sufficient way to counter energy use and gas emissions as many would think it to be. McWilliam’s “On My Mind: The Locavore Myth” also provides insight into the movement’s lack of energy use. While discussing the importation of foreign food, the author states “...and you discover that factors other than shipping far outweigh the energy it takes to transport food… transportation accounts for only 11% of food’s carbon footprint” (McWilliams). This shows how insignificant eating locally is for saving energy and cutting down on emissions as transportation doesn’t account for nearly as much as other aspects. Eating locally will not have do a significant job in helping a community save energy.

Chicken, lamb, turkey, milk, pork, eggs, fish, etc., all contribute to the environmental problems facing the planet. The fossil-fuel energy consumption to protein output for these livestock are as follows: chicken has a 4:1 ration, lamb 50:1, turkey 13:1, milk protein 14:1, pork 17:1, and eggs at a 26:1 ratio. This averages out to almost eight-times more “fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein” (Pimentel). In addition, each animal has its own benefits and downfalls. Pigs propose a lower carbon footprint but if raised in ideal free-range environments they can pollute the soil with nitrogen (Goffman 5). Chickens pose the threat of spreading bacteria through rivers and streams and spurring algal growth which create “dead zones”,

Determine the energy per gram (kcal/g) that is estimated on the package for each food

An article written in the Climatic Change journal states that, “They have shown that dietary GHG emissions emissions associated with self-selected diets in the UK are strongly associated with the amount of animal-based products in the diet.”

With the world’s population continuing to increase, the demand for food is higher than ever. This increase in food demand also calls for more efficient ways of growing and providing the food. Two methods that are very controversial are the organic and conventional method. While many people support the organic method because of its known benefits, others feel that it is an over inflated industry that cheats consumers out of their money. But recently many studies have disproved those critics. These studies prove that Organic food is a better choice than conventional because it is better for the environment, avoids the use of chemicals, and is generally more beneficial.

While all of us relatively understand how driving cars, leaving the lights on, or using too much water can affect the environment, there is one massive human activity that is frequently overlooked—eating. From growing, to processing, to distributing, and finally consuming, our agricultural system uses an immense portion of our planet’s limited resources and emits large amounts of greenhouse gases that have drastic effects on the environment. Because of this, it is imperative to understand the environmental impacts of the type of foods that we choose to include in our diets. While much of today’s population is heavily reliant on animal products, it is evident that a meat-based diet is not environmentally sustainable; on the other hand, a plant-based diet is much more environmentally friendly in terms of the amount of grain, water, and

Thesis: Choosing to purchase and consume organic food is a smart and healthy choice for you and your family.

Diets that focus on animal products, like meat, dairy, and eggs, require disproportionate high amounts of resources like water and land. Additionally, animals produce huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions that are responsible for climate change. Such diets are not great for the environment that surrounds us, but more and more studies also link them to chronic diseases and early deaths. If the way we eat is bad for us and for the environment, we should inform ourselves about the potential impact of changing our diets.

Barlow, B., Hemminger, L., and Schlegel, B. (2006). Is Organic Food Worth the Extra Cost? Retrieved from Environmental Health Perspectives website: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/114-2/ss.html

The everyday American on average wastes an astonishing twenty pounds of food each month (Gunders). Food waste is defined, as food that was intended for human consumption but was never eaten. Food waste in America is a massive problem; perfectly edible food is spoiled and discarded at every section of the food supply chain, which causes severe consequences for the environment and the economy. If Americans wasted 5% less food, the country as a whole would save fifty million dollars yearly (Hall). Not only would reducing food waste help save money but also it would immensely help climate change, as decomposing food in landfills creates methane gas. CO2 is known as the main culprit of climate change however; although methane gas is less talked