Earth Wise

A look at our changing environment.

You are here: Home / Archives for meat

meat

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.

Feeding Cows Seaweed | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

When cows digest their food, they burp, and when they burp, they release methane.  This is called enteric methane and it’s a real problem.  A single cow belches out 220 pounds of methane each year, which is the greenhouse gas equivalent of burning over 900 gallons of gasoline.  That’s more than the average car uses in a year.

Several studies have shown that feeding cows seaweed has the potential to substantially reduce the amount of methane in cow burps.  The latest comes from a trial that took place at the Straus Family Creamery, an organic dairy producer in Marin County, California.

The trial used a new seaweed-derived feed additive called Brominata.  Brominata is made of a red seaweed called Asparagopsis taxiformis.  The addition of the seaweed to the cows’ diets on the Straus farm resulted in an 52% average reduction in enteric methane emissions.  One cow in the study showed a reduction of 92%.

Cutting enteric methane emissions in half would be a huge improvement that would be quite difficult to achieve by convincing enough people to reduce meat and dairy consumption.

The California Air Resources Board has identified feed additives as an emissions-reduction strategy for the dairy industry.  There are now some synthetic feed additives that have been developed that reduce enteric methane, but they haven’tyet  received FDA approval for use in the U.S.  Brominata has been approved as Generally Regarded as Safe by the California Food and Drug Administration.  Whether it and similar seaweed-based feeds can be produced in sufficient quantity and without adverse environmental effects remains to be seen.  But it is an intriguing approach to solving a complicated problem.

**********

Web Links

Feeding Cows Seaweed Reduces Their Methane Emissions, but California Farms Are a Long Way From Scaling Up the Practice

Photo, posted November 10, 2015, courtesy of Lance Cheung/USDA via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

A Giant Tortoise Is Not Extinct | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The Galapagos Islands are famous for their tortoises, among many other things. A few million years ago, some giant tortoises from South America were somehow carried across hundreds of miles of ocean to the islands – perhaps on driftwood during storms.  Tortoises don’t swim, so any that made to an island could only breed with others on that same island.   The result was rapid evolution of tortoise species in the Galapagos.  Today, there are 14 different species of giant tortoises there.

Centuries ago, tortoise populations in the Galapagos were decimated by European sailors who hunted them for food.   The giant reptiles could be kept alive on ships with little food or water, so they became a great source of meat.

On the island of Fernandina, there was a species of Galapagos tortoise known as the “fantastic giant tortoise.”  Only a single one of these was ever found and that was in 1906.  It ended up being preserved as a museum specimen.

In 2019, a female tortoise living on Fernandina was located and genome sequencing has only recently been successfully completed for that living specimen and the century-old one in the museum which compared them to sequences of the other 13 species of Galapagos tortoise.  That analysis showed that the two were indeed the same species and are distinct from all the others.

The female tortoise, who has been named Fernanda, now resides at the Galapagos National Park Tortoise Center, which is a rescue and breeding facility.  She is well over 50 years old.  Recent tracks and scat on Fernandina Island provide evidence that there may still be others of her kind.  The experts are trying to do what they can to keep the species alive.

**********

Web Links

‘Fantastic giant tortoise,’ believed extinct, confirmed alive in the Galápagos

Photo, posted January 1, 2019, courtesy of Pedro Szekely via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Who Can Solve The Plastic Waste Problem? | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Plastic packaging waste is a global problem.  It collects in the oceans, breaks down into microplastics, which are consumed by fish and in turn by people who eat the fish.  Only 14.5% of U.S. plastic waste is recycled.  Most of it ends up in landfills, where is remains undegraded for hundreds of years. 

A new international study explored the global patterns of plastic packaging waste.  The study found that three countries – the U.S., Brazil, and China – are the top suppliers of waste.  In terms of supply, the Americas generate 41% of the world’s production of plastic waste, Europe 24%, and Asia 21%.

That’s the plastics supply.  As far as the consumers actually creating waste are concerned, the Americas represent 36% of the world’s packaging consumption, Asia 26%, and Europe 23%.

Packaging high-protein food such as meat, fish, and dairy is a major contributor to the waste problem.  Plastic for this purpose is hard to replace and international exports exacerbate the problem, accounting for about 25% of plastic packaging waste.

International agreements typically focus on restrictions and fees on production.  But that mostly creates strong incentives to simply relocate polluting activities to developing countries, which is a zero-sum game.  There need to be incentives for consumers to reduce plastic use such as taxes on waste management, refunds on returning bottles, single-use plastic bans, and so on.

Who can solve the plastic waste problem?  Everyone along the supply chain as well as the final consumers have to be part of the solution for reducing plastic waste.

**********

Web Links

Producers and consumers must share burden of global plastic packaging waste

Photo, posted March 29, 2022, courtesy of Ivan Radic via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Whales As Ecosystem Engineers | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Researchers from Stanford University have been studying the role of large whales on ocean ecosystems with some surprising results.

From 1910 to 1970, people killed about 1.5 million baleen whales in the waters surrounding Antarctica.  The whales were hunted for their blubber, baleen, and meat.  Baleen is the filtering fringe that certain whales use instead of teeth to capture food from the ocean.  A primary food source for these whales is krill, small shrimp-like creatures.   One would assume that the decimation of the baleen whale population in the Southern Ocean would have led to a surge in krill populations.  But the new research has found that the opposite is the case.

The precipitous decline of large marine mammals has negatively impacted the health and productivity of ocean ecosystems.

New high-tech tagging devices that attach to whales for brief periods allow researchers to record their movements and activities.  For the first time, it has been possible to accurately determine how much krill whales actually consume, and the answer is that they eat two to three times as much as previously thought.  Interestingly, the same technology shows that fish-eating whales like humpbacks eat somewhat less than previously thought.

Baleen whales are essentially mobile krill processing plants.  They eat the krill, digest it, and produce iron-laden excretions that are needed by phytoplankton, which comprise the bottom of the food chain that nourish krill and other small creatures.  With fewer whales, there is less nourishment for the krill.  In fact, based on the new data, estimates are that the historic abundance of krill in the Southern Ocean had to be about five times what it is today.

Whales are important ecosystem engineers.

**********

Web Links

Stanford researchers find whales are more important ecosystems engineers than previously thought

Photo, posted November 18, 2010, courtesy of Dr. Brandon Southall, NMFS/OPR via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Eating To Help The Planet | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Agriculture accounts for more carbon dioxide emissions than transportation.  Producing our food is one of the largest contributors to climate change.   Experts agree that the world cannot achieve net zero emission targets without changing our diets.  Be that as it may, we still have to eat. 

According to experts from Oxford University, there are things we as individuals can do to lower the impact of the food system on the climate.

There are three primary actions that would have the greatest impact: avoiding eating too much, cutting down on food waste, and reducing consumption of meat and dairy.

We all know that overeating is bad for our health, but it is also bad for the environment as it drives excess production and the emissions associated with it.

Food waste occurs across the supply chain but much of it is in the hands of consumers.  Food waste costs us a lot of money and is associated with emissions that are ultimately unnecessary.  The goal of the consumer should be to buy only the food one needs and to eat what one buys.

Meats, particularly from ruminant animals, result in the highest emissions per pound of food compared with vegetables, grains, and such.  Some people have given up animal proteins entirely, but properly managed livestock are an important part of the agricultural ecosystem and provide valuable services including enhancing the carbon sequestering ability of grasslands.  Nevertheless, it is important to reduce the global demand for meat and thereby prevent the need to clear more land for livestock and reduce emissions from meat animals.  So, we should all eat less meat and dairy even if we don’t become vegetarians.

**********

Web Links

How can we eat without cooking the planet?

Photo, posted September 17, 2017, courtesy of Ella Olsson via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Spending Habits And Carbon Emissions | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

According to a new Swedish study recently published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, men spend their money on greenhouse gas-emitting goods and services, such as meat and fuel, at a much higher rate than women. 

The study looked at the carbon emissions created by consumption among categories like food, clothing, furniture, and vacations to see if households could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by buying different products and services.  The research team reviewed Swedish government data through 2012 and analyzed the spending habits of households, single men, and single women. 

According to the study, single Swedish men spent about 2% more money overall than single Swedish women.  But the stuff that the men bought created 16% more greenhouse gases than the stuff that the women bought.  That’s because men were more likely to spend money on high-emitting categories, like fuel for cars, while women spent more on less-emitting categories like furniture, health care, and clothing. 

For both men and women, vacations were a major source of emissions, accounting for approximately one-third of their total carbon footprint. 

While the carbon impact of men’s and women’s diets were nearly equal, men spent more money on meat while women spent more on dairy.  Both meat and dairy production are major sources of global greenhouse gas emissions.   

The study found single people were responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than married people or people in households. 

According to the research team, people could decrease their carbon emissions nearly 40% by making more environmentally-friendly choices, including switching to plant-based foods and traveling by train as opposed to flying or driving when possible. 

**********   

Web Links

Men have a bigger carbon footprint than women, climate study finds

Photo, posted June 17, 2012, courtesy of Stephen Ausmus/USDA via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Cell-Based Meat And Seafood | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

We have heard about laboratory meat for a number of years, generally in terms of something that may happen at some point in the indeterminate future. But at least for a couple of California companies, that future is now.

These high-tech companies are producing products – real meat and seafood – that are originally cultured from animal cells but are made without the actual animal.

San Francisco-based Eat Just makes chicken nuggets that have recently gained regulatory approval in Singapore and are now available to order at a downtown restaurant.  San Diego’s BlueNalu creates cell-based seafood fillets including yellowtail, mahi-mahi, red snapper, and tuna.

The companies use stem cells obtained from actual animals and cultivate them in steel tanks with the same nutrients that living animals consume.  The original cell donor is not sacrificed.  The harvested cells multiply and are eventually shaped to form meat or fish that cooks, looks, and tastes just like its natural counterpart.

The “mouth feel” of conventional meat or fish can be mimicked by recreating the same proportions of muscle, fat, and connective tissue in the cell-based product.  Eat Just says their product cooks, looks, and tastes like chicken because it is chicken.  BlueNalu says their product has all the same characteristics as fish because it is fish.

These products have major environmental, safety, and ethical advantages.  The big question is whether people will eat them.  Is there an “ick factor” to overcome?  Ultimately, the key thing is how they taste.  If they pass muster on that score and cell-based meats and seafood are scaled up and accepted, we can have the nutritional and sensory advantages of meat proteins without the environmental, ethical and safety disadvantages.

**********

Web Links

Can We Enjoy Meat and Seafood and Save the Planet?

Photo, posted February 1, 2012, courtesy of Andrea Parrish-Geyer via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Europe’s Green Deal: Bad For The Planet? | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

In 2019, the European Union announced the “Green Deal,” a comprehensive program aimed at making Europe the first climate-neutral continent, implementing environmentally friendly transport, increasing recycling, and expanding renewable energy.

The Green Deal involves significant changes to European agriculture.  Over the next ten years, under the ambitious environmental program, at least a quarter of all agricultural areas will be farmed organically, the use of fertilizers and pesticides greatly reduced, 3 billion trees planted, 15,000 miles of rivers restored, and the population declines of pollinators reversed.

However, in a recent article published in Nature, scientists at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology show that this Green Deal might actually be a bad deal for the planet.

The problem is that the EU is likely to basically be outsourcing environmental damage by its high imports of agricultural products.

According to the Karlsruhe study, the EU annually imports millions of tons of agricultural products, as much as 20% of its produce and much of its meat and dairy products.  Quite often, these imports come from countries whose environmental laws are far less stringent than those in Europe.

The EU cannot impose environmental standards on other countries, but it can demand that goods entering the European market meet EU requirements.  The study points out that Europe’s carbon footprint has to be evaluated on a global basis.  If the EU is truly to become a climate-neutral continent, it must include foreign trade goals and requirements in its environmental programs.  Otherwise, Europe will simply be outsourcing its environmental problems and will continue to cause damage to the planet.

**********

Web Links

Green Deal: Good for a Climate-neutral Europe – Bad for the Planet

Photo, posted July 17, 2009, courtesy of Edmund Garman via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Sharks On The Decline | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

During the past 70 years, global shark populations have been on the decline.   Many species have become threatened or endangered.  Conservation efforts have been underway in many places, but shark populations continue to be at risk because of over-fishing and habitat loss.

A comprehensive study by marine biologists at Texas A&M University deployed more than 15,000 baited remote underwater video stations on 371 coral reefs in 58 countries.   The study included 59 different shark species in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans.  The researchers were surprised to find that no sharks at all were detected in almost 20% of the locations surveyed and were almost completely absent from coral reefs in several nations. 

Scientists believe that demand for shark products, such as fins and meat, and bycatch (that is, sharks captured in nets by fisherman trapping other kinds of fish) are strong contributors to the widespread declines in shark numbers around the world.

The study shows that if corrective steps are not taken in regions where marine management is still ineffective, continued depletion of shark populations is highly likely. 

Sharks have important roles in marine ecosystems.  When their habitats deteriorate and their populations decrease, ecosystem stability and health is degraded because sharks help regulate prey populations.

Some countries, notably the Bahamas, are combating the problem by providing sanctuaries for sharks where fishing and harvesting is prohibited.  Such places support some of the healthiest shark populations in the world.  However, the decline of coral reefs is just another challenge facing shark populations around the world.

**********

Web Links

Study Shows Alarming Decline In Shark Numbers Around The World

Photo, posted January 9, 2017, courtesy of Kris-Mikael Krister via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Livestock Expansion And Global Pandemics | Earth Wise

By 1 Comment

The domestication of cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals as livestock for their meat, milk, and eggs was historically revolutionary.  It boosted food security by giving people a readily-available means of feeding themselves as opposed to more traditional methods such as hunting and fishing. 

But animal agriculture has plenty of drawbacks.  The industrialization of animal agriculture has led to horrendous conditions.  Animals are kept in huge quantities and packed together with little regard for their health and welfare.  This approach to agriculture is simply designed to maximize production while minimizing costs. 

With its chemical inputs and toxic outputs, intensive animal agriculture is also a major threat to the environment.  In fact, it’s a major driver of habitat degradation and biodiversity loss all around the globe.   

But it’s not just animals and the planet that pay a price.  Humans have inherited several lethal pathogens from livestock over the years, including the influenza virus that likely jumped to humans from poultry.

According to a study recently published in Biological Conservation,  there is a connection between the global increase in the emergence of infectious diseases and epidemics, the accelerated loss of biodiversity, and the expansion of livestock.  In the study, the research team from the Institute of Evolution Sciences of Montpellier cross referenced databases on human and animal health, livestock expansion, and biodiversity loss between 1960-2019.  The team found that the number of epidemics identified in humans increased in correlation with both biodiversity loss and livestock expansion. 

In the era of COVID-19, it’s important to understand how global livestock expansion directly threatens both human health and the health of the planet. 

**********   

Web Links

Livestock expansion is a factor in global pandemics

Photo, posted July 22, 2018, courtesy of Artem Beliakin via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Monitoring Wildlife For Warning Signs of the Next Pandemic | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

According to the World Health Organization, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 likely originated in wild bats near Wuhan, China, and may have been passed to a second animal species before infecting people.  Since then, according to data from Johns Hopkins University, more than 13 million people around the world have been infected by COVID-19 and about 600,000 have died. 

But despite the ever-present threat of a new virus sparking the next pandemic, there is currently no global system to screen for viruses in wild animals that could eventually spill over to humans. 

In an article recently published in the journal Science, a group of scientists is calling for the creation of a decentralized global system of wildlife surveillance.  The establishment of this global system could help identify viruses in wild animals that have the potential to infect and sicken people before another global disease outbreak begins. 

According to the scientists, coronaviruses alone have caused outbreaks in humans three times in the last 20 years:  SARS (or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), MERS (or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome), and COVID-19. 

While it’s impossible to know today how often viruses jump from animals to humans, human activity is making such spillover events more and more likely.  For instance, many continue to develop wild animal habitat to build new homes or businesses.  Some catch wild animals and re-sell them either for consumption or as exotic pets.  Parts from these wild animals are often shipped around the world as trinkets or as ingredients for traditional medicines. 

A global system that could identify potentially harmful viruses before they jump to humans is technologically feasible, affordable, and clearly necessary. 

**********

Web Links

COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

Global wildlife surveillance could provide early warning for next pandemic

Photo, posted January 15, 2008, courtesy of Doug Beckers via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Sea Turtles Prospering During The Shutdown | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Our stories often discuss how human activities change the natural environment.  With most of us confined to our homes, the lack of human activities is having profound effects on the environment.  We are talking about some of these this week.

Seven different species of sea turtles are found in the world’s oceans and play important roles in marine ecosystems.  Over time, human activities have tipped the scales against the survival of these animals.  They have been hunted for their eggs, meat, skin, and shells and face habitat destruction and accidental capture in fishing gear.  Their nesting grounds in beaches are constantly disturbed and endangered by human activity.

With the beaches in Florida closed in the effort to stop the spread of coronavirus, there is less plastic waste, fewer people and vehicles, and fewer artificial lights on the beach that disorient emerging turtle hatchlings.  Because of all of these factors, sea turtles have been building their nests without disruptions.

In April, it was nesting season for leatherback turtles, the largest of all sea turtles. In May, loggerhead turtles arrive in Florida.  Later in the summer, green turtles will arrive.

It takes about 60 days for sea turtle eggs to incubate and to hatch.  During that period, lots of things can happen to a nest on an active beach – it can get trampled, people can dig it up, and artificial light can confuse the hatchlings as they try to find their way to the water.  With the current shutdown, it should be a productive nesting season for sea turtles.

On the other hand, when beaches reopen, there may well be a major influx of people flocking to the beach because they have been stuck indoors for an extended period of time.

**********

Web Links

Sea turtles are thriving as coronavirus lockdown empties Florida beaches

Photo, posted August 9, 2016, courtesy of Florida Fish and Wildlife via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Livestock And Sustainable Food Systems | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Animal-based agriculture has endured a great deal of criticism with regard to its contributions to climate change and its other environmental impacts.  But its contributions to a sustainable food system are by no means all bad.  In fact, livestock play important roles in sustainable, regenerative agro-food systems.

Animals’ natural biological processes enable them to consume plant and food residues that are either indigestible by humans, unpalatable to people, or are no longer sellable for various reasons, all referred to as IUUB biomass.  There are many examples.

One dairy farm receives daily deliveries of apple waste from a processing facility that supplies apple slices for school lunches.  Another local dairy gets three truckloads of vegetable and fruit discards, along with expired bread products, each week.  No longer useful for consumers, these foodstuffs become feed for cattle rather than going to a landfill.  Even the booming market for plant-based foods like artificial meat for consumers has generated a surge of processing byproducts that can be consumed by livestock.

On a national scale, livestock are consuming millions of pounds of otherwise unusable IUUB created in the production of products like soybean and canola oils, orange juice, ethanol, and more.

While the livestock industry needs to keep working to minimize its environmental impact and there are many reasons to eat less meat, livestock farming is an integral part of our agro-food systems.  Farmers are embracing techniques to produce meat, milk and eggs as efficiently and sustainably as possible, minimizing agriculture’s climate-contributing footprint in the process.

**********

Web Links

Amazing Cows Hold Promise in Pioneering Sustainable Food Systems

Photo, posted May 11, 2019, courtesy of Theo Stikkelman via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Reducing Methane From Animals

By Leave a Comment

Methane emissions from ruminant livestock are currently estimated to be more than 100 million tons each year and, after rice agriculture, represent the biggest human-initiated methane source.  Given that fact, there is widespread encouragement for people to reduce their consumption of meat in order to reduce the amount of the potent greenhouse gas going into the atmosphere.

But an additional strategy to lower global methane emissions is to actually reduce the amount of methane produced by each animal.  To that end, researchers at the University of Otago in New Zealand have now identified new processes that control methane production in the stomachs of sheep and similar animals like cattle and deer.

They determined the specific microbes and enzymes that control the supply of hydrogen, which is the main energy source for methane producing microbes, known as methanogens.  Their work is focused on the development of small molecule inhibitors and vaccines to specifically target the production of methane by methanogens.  By reducing the supply of hydrogen to methanogens, it is possible to reduce animal methane emissions.

The research involved studying two types of sheep – those producing large amounts of methane and those producing less.  They found that the most active hydrogen-consuming microbes differed between the sheep.  Specifically, in the low methane emitting sheep, hydrogen consuming bacteria dominated over methanogens.

Ultimately, a strategy might emerge to introduce feed supplements that encourage non-methane producers to out-compete methanogens.  Controlling the supply of hydrogen to the methanogens will lead to reduced methane emissions. 

Having low-emission cattle would definitely help reduce the impact of agriculture on the climate.

**********

Web Links

Scientists discover processes to lower methane emissions from animals

Photo, posted April 7, 2017, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Earth Day

By Leave a Comment

Today is Earth Day.  On April 22, 1970, millions of Americas took to the streets in peaceful demonstrations in favor of environmental reform.  Since that first time, Earth Day has now become a global event each year.  Estimates are that as many as a billion people in 192 countries take part in Earth Day events.

This year, the theme for Earth Day is “Protect our Species.”  The focus is on the fact that the world is facing the greatest rate of extinction since the demise of the dinosaurs more than 60 million years ago.

But unlike the extinctions from that time that were linked to so-called acts of god like asteroid collisions, the rapid extinction of species in our world today is mostly the result of human activity.

The global destruction and rapid reduction of plant and wildlife populations are directly linked to climate change, deforestation, habitat loss, trafficking and poaching, unsustainable agriculture, pollution, and pesticides.

In order to stem the tide of destruction, the Earth Day Network is asking people to help raise awareness about the accelerating rate of extinction of millions of species and the causes and consequences of this phenomenon.  We need to push for the creation of policies that protect broad groups of species as well as individual species and their habitats.  There needs to be a global movement that embraces nature and its values. And we need to eat less meat and curtail the use of pesticides and herbicides.

We share the planet with many species, and we need them to be here in order to sustain our own species.  Something to remember on Earth Day 2019.

**********

Web Links

Earth Day Network

Photo, posted January 24, 2012, courtesy of Jonas Bengtsson 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.

Fast Food And Climate Change

By 1 Comment

A coalition of global investors is urging some of the largest fast food companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The group, which has approximately $6.5 trillion under management, wants the fast food chains to reduce the carbon footprint of their meat and dairy supply chains. 

The global fast food sector is reportedly worth a whopping $570 billion annually.  The coalition has targeted some of the most notable contributors to that figure, including McDonald’s, KFC, Domino’s, Wendy’s, Burger King, Pizza Hut, and Chipotle.

According to the investors, animal agriculture is one of the world’s highest-emitting sectors without a low-carbon plan.  If left unchecked, emissions from animal agriculture alone would contribute 70% of the total worldwide target for emissions in 2050 that would keep the global rise in temperature below 2C.  Animal agriculture also uses an estimated 10% of annual global water flows.

In their letter to the fast food giants, the investors are calling on the companies to implement clear requirements for suppliers of animal proteins to report and reduce their greenhouse gas and freshwater impacts.  They want fast food companies to publish quantitative, time bound targets for reductions, and commit to publicly disclose the progress on these targets. 

Climate change is increasingly a factor for investors when evaluating market risk.  This investor letter comes just weeks after the EAT-Lancet commission report was published, in which their experts suggest that a sustainable diet for the planet by 2050 will require a 90% reduction in red meat and milk consumption.   

Fast food may need to slow down. 

**********

Web Links

Fast food giants under fire on climate and water usage

The EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health

Photo, posted May 19, 2014, courtesy of Mike Mozart 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.

Japan And Whaling

By Leave a Comment

The commercial hunting of whales nearly drove the giant mammals to extinction.  By the 1960s, as hunting technologies improved and ships began to resemble floating factories, it became clear that whaling could not continue unchecked. 

But despite all this, commercial whaling was never actually banned.  Instead, in 1986, members of the International Whaling Committee (IWC) agreed to a whaling moratorium in order to allow whale stocks to recover.  Pro-whaling nations like Japan, Iceland, and Norway expected the moratorium to be temporary until the whales stocks recovered, and a consensus on catch quotas could be established.  But the temporary moratorium became a quasi-permanent ban, much to the delight of conservationists and to the dismay of whaling nations. 

As a result, Japan recently announced it is leaving the international agreement and plans to resume commercial whaling.  The agreement though never really stopped Japanese whaling in the first place, because it allowed the country to kill whales for scientific research.  Japan has had an annual Antarctic catch quota of 333 minke whales, producing notoriously little in terms of whale science while producing  lots of whale meat.  As part of its withdrawal from the IWC, Japan will cease its Antarctic hunts and limit whalers to its own waters.  Commercial Japanese whaling will resume in July. 

Once popular in Japan, whale meat consumption has plummeted, falling 98% between 1962 and 2016. The industry employs fewer than 1,000 people and is dependent on government subsidies. 

Many governments and conservationist groups condemned Japan’s withdrawal, declaring the move out of step with the international community.  They argue that, rather than hunting whales, urgent action is needed to conserve marine ecosystems. 

**********

Web Links

Japan to Resume Commercial Whaling, Defying International Ban

Photo, posted February 5, 2009, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

WAMC Northeast Public Radio

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