Just last week, I wrote about how processed vegetarian protein products aren’t necessarily greener than local, organic animal proteins. This week, a new study commissioned by the eco-nonprofit World Wildlife Federation came out on the same topic — confirming that vegans are not always greener than locavoring omnivores.
To be clear: This doesn’t mean you should go buy a hunk of factory-farmed steak.
In fact, if locavoring omnivores and vegans can agree on one thing, it’s this: Americans need to eat a more veggie-based diet that shuns factory-farmed animal products. After all, even Michael Pollan — arguably the most famous eco-omnivore right now — big ups veggies in his haiku-esque green eating mantra: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”
What the new study basically points out is that eating green isn’t simply about picking a vegan, veg, pescatarian, or omnivore diet. It’s about paying attention to what you’re eating specifically — where it comes from, how it was grown or raised, how much it was processed, and how much it traveled to get to your plate.
The study, conducted by Cranfield University, basically found that processed veg proteins that traveled long distances were sometimes more harmful to the environment than local animal products. Unfortunately, I’ve been unable to find the study itself online, and have had to rely on The Telegraph UK’s article about the study, which reports:
The results showed that the amount of foreign land required to produce the substitute products – and the potential destruction of forests to make way for farmland – outweighed the negatives of rearing beef and lamb in the UK….
Meat substitutes were also found to be highly processed, often requiring large amounts of energy to produce. The study recognised that the environmental merits of vegetarianism depended largely on which types of foods were consumed as an alternative to meat.
Note, again, that the big carbon footprint of the veg proteins had to do mostly with processing and travel miles. The comparison being made here isn’t between the average vegan and the average omnivore (who likely consumes factory-farmed beef, which is about the ungreenest protein source), but between the imported veg-meat addicted vegan and the locavoring omnivore.
This means that if you’re eating highly-processed veg meats imported from Taiwan most days, you diet’s not greener than your friend who gets organic, free-range chicken from the local farmers’ market. On the other hand, if you’re a vegan who sticks to tofu grown and made in the U.S., or legumes grown as locally as possible that you buy dry and cook at home, your carbon footprint will likely be lower than most omnivores.
According to The Telegraph, “The National Farmers’ Union said the study showed that general arguments about vegetarianism being beneficial to the environment were too simplistic.” I completely agree with this opinion. Eating green isn’t as simple as short mantras like “Go Veg!” A sustainable diet requires more nuanced thinking, and a stronger emphasis on local foods.
Photo by massdistraction
I’m vegan and try to keep consumption of processed “veggie meat” products to a minimum. However I think it is worth noting in any discussion concerning veganism, that the choice to go vegan, for many has more to do with the ethics of the treatment of other living creatures than being green, though of course there is overlapping interest of environmental concern for most.
I think the concept of what green is, is also somewhat ambiguous and open to interpretation. Is CO2 output the only measure? What about water shortage issues and the considerably higher water usage demands of keeping livestock. The study also says the foreign land required to grow alternatives is not beneficial compared to keeping cows, but the biggest consumer of soybeans in the world is not humans, but cows, something the article conveniently leaves out. Foreign land is already being used to supplement protein in the diet of the livestock.
This is not to say I am defending veggie meats flown half way across the world, but I think that just as green measured as veggie = good, meat = bad is an oversimplification, I think so to is close = good, far = bad. Sometimes those close cows are eating soy grown in South America.
Comment by Gary Kavanagh — February 19, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
Some of the issues you bring up are the exact reasons why I’d like to see the original study. It’s unclear how much of the land / water issues were taken into account, for example, or what type of feed from where the livestock were fed. But again, keep in mind that this study’s basically comparing the greenest omnivores to the least green vegetarian. For example, in terms of beef, the study might only be looking at locally-raised, grass fed and finished cows — not the soybean fed kind. In any case, hopefully it’ll appear online soon.
The study from the Netherlands I wrote about in the previous post is at least available as an English summary. That one definitely takes broader land issues into account for both livestock and farms.
Comment by Siel — February 19, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
I am more interested in a vegan lifestyle than a green one. But thanks for the info and I too agree that more research needs to be done about proccessed vs natural.
Comment by kristen — February 20, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
This study also helps to point out the other weakness what, for lack of a better term, I’ll call a “slow food diet”: it’s all very well to say “Eat food, not to much, mostly vegetables,” but the truth is that to eat that way _and_ to eat _well_ requires substantial amounts of money (A while ago I read a great article by someone who decided to eat vegetarian on a poverty salary, as an experiment. Surprise! They ended up eating mostly corn pone.)
So I have very little patience for anyone who wants to lecture on the way people “should” eat who doesn’t address the issue, and address it in more than a sophomoric “Well, if we just eliminate all beef subsidies, fresh delicious vegetables will spring up in every garden from San Diego to Bangor, Maine!” sort of way.
Comment by peterb — February 21, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
typo in my message: “who doesn’t address the issue of how we make a sustainable diet affordable….”
Comment by peterb — February 21, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
peterb — CSA programs and farmers’ markets help a lot with the cost issue. Get it at the source and cut out the middle man, and you can eat a lot better and even save money, if you cook (vs buying processed crap). More people are eating sustainably, even on a food stamp budget.
Comment by Siel — February 23, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
What I think your article – and the other comments – showed very well was that there are no “simple” answers to an incredibly complex issue. Even “Go local” can have a price if it involves destroying a habitat to provide food.
Here in the UK we have a lot of issues of this nature, having somewhat less space than you. Not quite food related, but there is a plan to build a barrage across a major river estuary. It will provide quite a lot of “green” enery – and possibly destroy an important habitat for wading and migrating birds.
Some of our finest grassland habitats only exist because they are used to graze sheep, reared for meat. Should we plough (or plow) those grasslands up to grow vegetables?
The balance is almost impossible to find. Pollen’s mantra is one of the best. If we ate proper meat, and less of it, we would not require (as much) intensively reared livestock. By proper meat I mean that there is more to a cow than prime steak. All the cheap cuts and the offal should form a much larger part of our buying habits than they do.
Comment by Tony — March 5, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
Tony — I agree the issues are extremely complex. The debates you bring up remind me of some of the green energy issues we’re having in Calif. (i.e. should we build wind farms in areas where endangered species live?)….
Comment by Siel — April 14, 2010 @ 10:36 pm