Earth Wise

A look at our changing environment.

You are here: Home / Archives for beef

beef

Lab-Grown Meat Is Legal | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

We’ve heard more and more about laboratory meat.  Other names for it are cultured meat, cultivated meat, or test tube meat.  Whatever name ends up sticking, the idea is to take living cells from animals and grow them in a controlled laboratory environment to produce a meat product that doesn’t involve the slaughter of any animals.  Supporters say cultured meat is more efficient and environmentally friendly than traditional livestock.  Livestock agriculture is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, uses vast amounts of land, and consumes much of the world’s fresh water.

Years ago, we reported on a company called Memphis Meats, which was one of a number of companies developing techniques for harvesting cells from animal tissues and using them to grow edible flesh in bioreactors.

Recently, that company – now called Upside Foods – has become the first company to receive FDA approval declaring their meat product to be safe for human consumption.  The USDA still needs to give its approval and it may be a little while longer before Upside’s first chicken products will end up in supermarkets.  There are more than 150 cultivated meat companies around the world backed by billions of dollars in investments.  The FDA is in ongoing discussions with multiple firms in the business.

Upside Foods, based in the San Francisco Bay area, is planning to market chicken, beef meatballs, and duck in the near future.  Other companies are working on seafood products.  Up until now, Singapore has been the only country in which lab-grown meat products are legally sold to consumers.  With this landmark FDA ruling, that is all about to change.

**********

Web Links

US declares lab-grown meat safe to eat in ‘groundbreaking’ move

Photo, posted April 15, 2008, courtesy of Andrew Otto via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Bitcoin Mining And The Environment | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Bitcoin mining, the process by which the prominent cryptocurrency is created, is well-known to be energy intensive, but the environmental impact of it has not been extensively studied.  People have described Bitcoin as ‘digital gold.’  A new analysis by researchers at the University of New Mexico has found that Bitcoin mining shouldn’t be compared to gold mining.  It is more appropriately compared to the creation of much more energy-intensive products such as beef, natural gas, and crude oil.

Furthermore, the study found that rather than becoming more sustainable over time, Bitcoin mining is becoming dirtier and more damaging to the climate as long as it relies upon fossil-fuel generated electricity.  Estimates are that in 2020, Bitcoin mining used 75.4 terawatt hours of electricity, which is more electricity than the entire country of Austria, as well as 150 other nations around the world.

The study looked at the economic cost of the air pollution and carbon emissions associated with Bitcoin mining and found that in many instances, the negative economic impact of creating a single Bitcoin is more than what the resultant coin is worth.

Based on the market value of Bitcoins, the cost of climate damage for that value is a little less that that of electricity produced by natural gas and gasoline produced from crude oil, but actually more than that of beef production.

There are multiple cryptocurrencies.  Ether is one that voluntarily switched away from so-called proof-of-work mining.  Whether Bitcoin or others will act similarly absent potential regulation remains to be seen.  Until such time, Bitcoin mining remains an increasingly dirty and damaging business.

**********

Web Links

Technology: UNM researchers find Bitcoin mining is environmentally unsustainable

Photo, posted May 11, 2017, courtesy of Komers Real via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Plant-Based Foods And CO2 Emissions | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

We often hear how eating locally-sourced food is a way to minimize the carbon footprint of our diet.  But from a climate impact perspective, this only has a significant impact if transportation is responsible for a large portion of a food’s final carbon footprint.  In many cases, the greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation make up only a small portion of the total emissions from food, and what we eat is far more important.

In general, beef and lamb have the biggest climate footprint per gram of protein.  Plant-based foods tend to have the smallest impact. Pork and chicken are somewhere in the middle. 

According to new research, U.S. food production could reduce its agricultural carbon footprint between 2.5% and 13.5% by embracing plant-based alternatives to beef.  The study, from researchers at Cornell University, Johns Hopkins University, and international partners, found that most of the reduction would be achieved by decreasing the number of cows needed for beef production by two to twelve million animals.  The research was recently published in the journal Lancet Planetary Health.

However, the researchers also found that acting to reduce climate change in this manner could have unintended consequences.  For example, economic models from the research team show that the growth in popularity of plant-based beef could disrupt the agricultural workforce, threatening more than 1.5 million jobs. 

But in the big picture, doing nothing will cost much more than doing something to slow climate change.  Shifting diets away from meat and other animal products and towards more plant-based foods will help shrink carbon footprints and mitigate climate change.  It’s a win-win for the planet and for human health. 

**********

Web Links

Plant-based ‘beef’ reduces CO2 but threatens ag jobs

Photo, posted November 27, 2018, courtesy of Sarah Stierch via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Record Levels Of Deforestation In The Amazon | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The Amazon rainforest is the largest rainforest in the world, covering more than 2.5 million square miles.  It’s home to 10% of all known species in the world.  The Amazon rainforest’s biodiversity is so rich that scientists are still discovering new plant and animal species today.  

The Amazon rainforest absorbs huge amounts of carbon dioxide from Earth’s atmosphere, making it a key part of mitigating climate change.  The vast rainforest acts as what’s known as a carbon sink.  Simply put, a carbon sink is anything that absorbs more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases.  But as trees in the Amazon disappear, so does the ability of the rainforest to absorb carbon dioxide.

Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest remains a major problem.  According to satellite data from the Brazilian government, the number of trees cut down in the Brazilian Amazon in January far exceeded deforestation figures for the same month last year.  Approximately 166 square miles of land was deforested in January alone, which is five times greater than what was lost in January, 2021.

Cattle ranching – both for beef and for leather – remains the leading cause of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.  Trees in the Amazon are also cut down for their wood, as well as to clear the land in order to grow food crops, such as soy, sugar, and oil palm. 

Many companies have pledged to achieve “net zero” deforestation in their supply chains over the years, but most have not lived up to the commitment. 

Deforestation is not only a major driver of climate change, but it’s also the leading cause of species extinction.  Preserving the Amazon rainforest is vital. 

**********

Web Links

Amazon deforestation: Record high destruction of trees in January

Greenpeace calls on fast food giants to take a stand against Bolsonaro’s Amazon destruction

Hundreds of Companies Promised to Help Save Forests. Did They?

Photo, posted July 14, 2018, courtesy of Alexander Gerst via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Cleaning Up Abandoned Wells | Earth Wise      

By Leave a Comment

There are 130,000 documented abandoned oil and gas wells in the US, according to the Department of the Interior.  The key word is documented.  According to an EPA study in 2018, the actual number of abandoned wells could be as high as two or three million.  According to an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund and McGill University, about nine million people in the United States live within a mile of one of these wells.

Some of these wells might be fairly harmless, and others might be quite dangerous.  Wells can emit a variety of gasses, including methane, which is a far stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.  Leaking wells are a major source of air and groundwater pollution.  Apart from methane, substances such as arsenic can continue to leak from wells even after they are no longer operational.

At the end of January, the Biden Administration announced a series of new actions to tackle methane pollution.  Among these measures is $1.15 billion in funds from the Department of the Interior that states can use to seal up abandoned oil and gas wells.  That funding comes from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed in November, which sets aside $4.7 billion for a federal program dedicated to orphaned wells.

Addressing the largely ignored problem of abandoned wells is important from the standpoint of climate pollution as well as human health.  Efforts to plug the wells will also provide high-paying jobs

Other methane-reduction measures include increased enforcement from the Department of Transportation on reducing pipelines leaks, research funding for limiting methane emissions from beef and dairy farming, and technical assistance from the Department of Energy on well-plugging efforts.

**********

Photo, posted March 23, 2011, courtesy of David Stone via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Food And Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

According to a study published in the journal Nature Food, the world’s food systems are responsible for more than one third of global greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities. 

‘Eat Local’ is often recommended as a way to minimize the carbon footprint of our diet.  But from a climate impact perspective, eating local only has a significant impact if transportation is responsible for a large portion of a food’s final carbon footprint.  And in many cases, greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation make up only a small portion of the emissions from food and what we eat is far more important. 

There are massive differences in the greenhouse gas emissions of various foods. 

For example, producing one pound of beef generates 60 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions.  This is more than double the next closest food (lamb), and more than 60 times greater than some plant crops like corn and cassava. 

For most foods – especially the largest emitters – greenhouse gas emissions from land use change combined with the emissions from processes at the farm stage account for more than 80% of the environmental footprint.  Meanwhile, transportation accounts for less than 10%, and its contribution for the largest emitters is even smaller.  For example, transportation accounts for 0.5% of emissions from beef production.

Eating beef or lamb has many times the carbon footprint of most other foods.  It matters very little in terms of emissions whether it was grown locally or shipped from another part of the world.  It’s not the location that makes the carbon footprint of our dinner large.  It’s what is on our plate that matters.

**********  

Web Links

Food systems account for over one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions

You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food?

Photo, posted November 7, 2018, courtesy of Preston Keres / USDA via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

We’re Still Eating The Wrong Things

By 1 Comment

A new study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has found that despite efforts to increase public awareness of health issues related to diet, the amount of processed meat consumed by Americans has remained unchanged in the past 18 years.  Furthermore, our intake of fish and shellfish has not increased.  One quarter of US adults are still eating more unprocessed read meat than the recommended level, and less than 15% meet the current guidelines for fish and shellfish consumption.

About the only positive note is that Americans are eating less beef and more chicken than they did 18 years ago and, in fact, for the first time, the consumption of poultry exceeds that of unprocessed red meat.

Accumulating evidence has linked excessive consumption of processed meat to increased risk of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and some cancers.  The study’s authors speculate that public awareness of these linkages is not widespread enough to affect change and, in any case, factors other than health – social, cultural, and economic – have greater influence over Americans’ food choices.  The top five consumed processed meats are luncheon meat, sausage, hot dogs, ham, and bacon.

The low consumption of fish and shellfish among U.S. adults could be due to high retail prices, lack of awareness of the health benefits, and concerns about mercury contamination in certain types of fish.

Future research is needed to identify barriers to reducing processed meat consumption and increased seafood consumption.  Policies such as nutrition quality standards, excise taxes, health warning labels, and other interventions need to be explored.

**********

Web Links

Americans still eat too much processed meat and too little fish

Photo, posted January 28, 2014, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Microplastic Diet

By Leave a Comment

According to a new study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, Americans consume more than 70,000 microplastic particles every year from the food they eat, the water they drink, and the air they breathe.

While the health impacts of ingesting these tiny particles are largely unknown, there is the potential for the plastic to enter human tissues and cause an immune response or perhaps release toxic chemicals into the body.

The analysis by biologists at the University of Victoria in Canada examined data from 26 previous studies on microplastic contamination.  It found that Americans eat and drink an estimated 39,000 to 52,000 microplastic particles each year, depending on their age and sex.  The numbers jump to 74,000 to 121,000 when inhalation of microplastics is included.

Americans who drink water solely from plastic bottles consume an additional 90,000 particles annually, compared to only 4,000 particles for people who only drink tap water.

The researchers warn that their findings are likely to be drastic underestimates of the problem.  Several major U.S. food groups – including poultry, beef, dairy, grains, and vegetables – have not been studied for their microplastic contamination.  Thus, the estimate of microparticle ingestion is associated with only 15% of an average person’s caloric intake.  Furthermore, there is no assessment currently available for how much plastic might be entering our bodies from food packaging.

The report’s findings suggest that microplastics will continue to be found in the majority if not all items intended for human consumption.  Realistically, the only way to reduce the human consumption of microplastics will be to reduce the production and use of plastics.

**********

Web Links

Americans Consume Tens of Thousands of Microplastic Particles Every Year

Photo, posted June 18, 2016, courtesy of Sirirat Kornsongkaew via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Why Choose Chicken Over Beef?

By Leave a Comment

Food production is a major driver of climate change.  It’s responsible for more than a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions.  But the environmental impact of different foods varies greatly, and making seemingly insignificant changes can actually have significant impacts. 

According to a first-ever national study of U.S. eating habits and their carbon footprints, choosing chicken over beef will cut your dietary carbon footprint in half.

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey asked more than 16,000 participating Americans to name all the foods they consumed in the past 24 hours. The research team then calculated the carbon footprint of what people said they ate.  If a respondent consumed broiled beef steak, for example, researchers calculated what the carbon footprint would have been had broiled chicken been consumed instead.   

The study’s findings illustrate how making one simple substitution can significantly reduce a person’s dietary carbon footprint.  A diet’s carbon footprint is the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that result from the energy, fertilizer, land use, and other inputs necessary to produce food.

In general, animal-based foods have a bigger carbon footprint than plant-based foods.  For example, producing beef uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans (per gram of protein), and requires 10 times more resources than producing chicken. 

According to the World Resources Institute, keeping the increase in global warming below 2°C will be impossible without limiting the global rise in meat consumption. 

Last year, the EAT-Lancet Commission report found that a radical transformation of the global food system was needed because it’s threatening the stability of the climate. 

Make a change – big or small – today. 

**********

Web Links

Choosing chicken over beef cuts our carbon footprints a surprising amount

Photo, posted August 30, 2011, courtesy of Ken Hawkins via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Whopping Change

By Leave a Comment

Burger King, the global hamburger fast food giant, recently made a huge announcement:  Customers will soon have the option to select either a beef patty or a plant-based patty when ordering the iconic Whopper sandwich. 

Burger King’s plant-based patty will be made by Impossible Foods, a California startup founded in 2011 with the explicit goal of decreasing the world’s reliance on animal agriculture.  Impossible Foods signature product, the Impossible burger, has already debuted as a slider in White Castle’s 380 or so stores.  It’s also being added to the menu at all 570 Red Robin locations.  Other plant-based innovators, such as Beyond Meat, have also found some mainstream success.  But the Impossible Whopper and the planned national roll-out at Burger King’s 7,200 locations is the biggest deal to date.

Impossible Foods’ major innovation comes from its use of heme, which is an iron-rich protein that in essence is what makes meat taste like meat.  Impossible Foods cultivates heme directly from plants – soybean plant roots to be exact – and then mass produces it using yeast.  This is then mixed with other plant-based ingredients to achieve the nutty texture of ground beef.

Meat production is one of the biggest single contributors to climate change.  The Impossible burger represents a better choice for the environment.  It requires 87% less water, 96% less land, and produces 89% fewer greenhouse gas emissions when compared with beef burgers.  At Burger King, the Impossible Whopper will have the same amount of protein as the regular Whopper, but 15% less fat and 90% less cholesterol. 

Meatless continues to push into the mainstream.

**********

Web Links

Behold the Beefless ‘Impossible Whopper’

Photo, posted November 27, 2018, courtesy of Sarah Stierch via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Food Production And Climate Change

By Leave a Comment

According to a University of Oxford study recently published in the journal Science, food production is a major driver of climate change as it’s responsible for 26% of all greenhouse gas emissions.  But the research team found that the environmental impact of different foods varied greatly. 

Meat and other animal products are responsible for 58% of all food-related greenhouse gas emissions, despite only providing approximately one-fifth of the calories we consume.  The researchers found that beef and lamb in particular have the most damaging effect on the planet, responsible for half of all greenhouse gas emissions from animal agriculture. 

These findings echo recommendations from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about how individuals can reduce their carbon footprint through diet.  The IPCC suggests we consume less meat and dairy products, consume more locally-sourced seasonal foods, and throw less food in the trash.  

Avoiding meat and dairy products can reduce an individual’s carbon footprint from food by two-thirds.  The effects of doing so include everything from conserving water and preserving biodiversity to reducing pollution and deforestation. 

Interestingly, the same food can have major differences in terms of environmental impacts.  For example, beef raised on deforested land is responsible for 12 times as many greenhouse gas emissions as that raised on natural pastures.  But even the most climate-friendly meat options are still responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the highest-impact vegetable proteins, like beans and nuts. 

Big differences can also be made by avoiding chocolate and coffee produced from deforested lands.  

To learn more about the climate impact of your diet, follow the link to the ‘Climate Change Food Calculator’ on our website: Earth-Wise-Radio.org. 

**********

Web Links

Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers

Climate change food calculator

Photo, posted June 21, 2011, courtesy of USDA NRCS Montana via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Feeding Seaweed To Cows

By Leave a Comment

Methane emissions are a real problem.  As a greenhouse gas, methane has at least 25 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide.  More than a third of all the methane that humans are responsible for putting into the atmosphere comes from domestic livestock:  cattle, sheep, goats and buffalo.  In California alone, dairy cows along with a smaller number of beef cattle emit the heat trapping equivalent of the emissions from 2.5 million cars.

[Read more…] about Feeding Seaweed To Cows

Tree-Planting Drones

By Leave a Comment

One of the major causes of the increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is deforestation.   We chop down about 15 billion trees each year.  Over time, our activities have reduced the number of trees on earth by about 50%.  We do plant trees – these days, about 9 billion a year.  It is a substantial number, but still leaves a net loss of 6 billion trees annually.

[Read more…] about Tree-Planting Drones

Climate Change And Barley

By Leave a Comment

The impacts of increased carbon dioxide and the changing climate are often complicated and, it turns out, not always negative.  In some areas of the world, people can actually benefit from increased CO2 and climate change. Barley, the most important feed crop for beef production in Alberta, Canada, as well as the province’s beef industry itself actually stand to gain from the changes that are most assuredly not a good thing for much of the world.

[Read more…] about Climate Change And Barley

Americans And Beef

By

There’s ample evidence over the past decade or so that Americans are gradually changing their diets, driven by health concerns among other factors.  But there’s one change that really stands out.  According to a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Americans have sliced their beef consumption by 19% between 2005 and 2014. 

[Read more…] about Americans And Beef

WAMC Northeast Public Radio

WAMC/Northeast Public Radio is a regional public radio network serving parts of seven northeastern states (more...)