From the University of Michigan, everything you eat is bad for GHG’s apparently, so only eat what the government says. Oh, wait.
ANN ARBOR—If Americans altered their menus to conform to federal dietary recommendations, emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases tied to agricultural production could increase significantly, according to a new study by University of Michigan researchers.
Martin Heller and Gregory Keoleian of U-M’s Center for Sustainable Systems looked at the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of about 100 foods, as well as the potential effects of shifting Americans to a diet recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
They found that if Americans adopted the recommendations in USDA’s “Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010,” while keeping caloric intake constant, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions would increase 12 percent.
If Americans reduced their daily caloric intake to the recommended level of about 2,000 calories while shifting to a healthier diet, greenhouse gas emissions would decrease by only 1 percent, according to Heller and Keoleian.
A paper by Heller and Keoleian titled “Greenhouse gas emission estimates of U.S. dietary choices and food loss” is scheduled for online publication Sept. 5 in the Journal of Industrial Ecology.
“The take-home message is that health and environmental agendas are not aligned in the current dietary recommendations,” Heller said.
The paper’s findings are especially relevant now because the USDA Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is for the first time considering food sustainability within the context of dietary recommendations, he said.
In its 2010 dietary guidelines, USDA recommends that Americans eat more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fat-free and low-fat dairy products, and seafood. They should consume less salt, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, added sugar and refined grains.
The guidelines don’t explicitly state that Americans should eat less meat. However, an appendix to the report lists the recommended average daily intake amounts of various foods, including meat. The recommended amount of meat is significantly less than current consumption levels, which Heller and Keoleian estimated using the USDA’s Loss Adjusted Food Availability dataset as a proxy for per capita food consumption in the United States.
While a drop in meat consumption would help cut diet-related greenhouse gas emissions, increased use of dairy products—and to a lesser extent seafood, fruits and vegetables—would have the opposite effect, increasing diet-related emissions, according to the U-M researchers.
In the United States in 2010, food production was responsible for about 8 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. In general, animal-based foods are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions per pound than plant-based foods.
The production of both beef cattle and dairy cows is tied to especially high levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
For starters, cows don’t efficiently convert plant-based feed into muscle or milk, so they must eat lots of feed. Growing that feed often involves the use of fertilizers and other substances manufactured through energy-intensive processes. And then there’s the fuel used by farm equipment.
In addition, cows burp lots of methane, and their manure also releases this potent greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gas emissions associated with producing the U.S. diet are dominated by the meats category, according to Heller and Keoleian. While beef accounts for only 4 percent by weight of the food available, it contributes 36 percent of the associated greenhouse gases, they conclude.
The U-M researchers found that a switch to diets that don’t contain animal products would lead to the biggest reductions in this country’s diet-related greenhouse emissions.
But Heller said he’s not arguing that all Americans should go vegan, and he believes that animals need to be part of a sustainable agricultural system. However, reduced consumption would have both health and environmental benefits.
In their Journal of Industrial Ecology paper, Heller and Keoleian also looked at wasted food and how it contributes to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. They concluded that annual emissions tied to uneaten food are equivalent to adding 33 million passenger vehicles to the nation’s roads.
Center for Sustainable Systems at the U-M School of Natural Resources and Environment: http://css.snre.umich.edu
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Which of course begs the question. If you had a choice between a ton of cow manure and a ton of Boomer nutritional and agricultural abstracts, which will benefit you more?
I’ll take door #1, Zeke…I could really use that ton of manure (actually about 10 would perfect).
I truly wish you the best on obtaining 10 tons of aged manure. Excellent choice. (:
I grew up on wild game and fish, along side a plethora of garden grown veggies. And during wheat harvest we would chew on a handful of fresh wheat grain out of the grain truck. So I am not too fussy about this article. Fat is fat and my grandparents were excellent at trimming fat off of kitchen-butchered game and beef (yes, we butchered quarters in the kitchen). If the meat was too lean for ground meat, grandma would add suet or bacon fat she got nearly for free from the local grocery store (they just threw it away back then).
HOWEVER!!!!! I will not stand for fruit in my s’more’s. That is against the very central tenants of faith and must be listed as a sin somewhere in the Bible, or at least the Catholic Mass Sunday Morning Bulletin! What will they tell me to do next? Drink carrot juice instead of my red wine?????? Hell no!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/09/06/is-nothing-sacred-forest-service-says-drop-chocolate-add-fruit-to-your-smores/?intcmp=latestnews
DirkH wrote
September 5, 2014 at 3:25 pm
Broccoli is both nutritious and filling. I think it makes a great snack: crunchy, tastes good, good for you; what’s not to like? The stems can be peeled; the cores are delicious.
In cool weather, along with carrots, broccoli also serves as a foundation for crockpot meals with a nice cut of steak, or chicken. I add onion, garlic, green peppers.
I never eat margarine, and I avoid processed meats, and all foods with artificial anything, especially sweeteners and dyes. I drink 1% milk, use butter where it is needed, like on toast, corn on the cob, or maybe popcorn. For sweets I like ice cream & chocolate.
You know broccoli is good simply by considering who didn’t like it, and who didn’t have to eat it anymore because he was president.
-☺-
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2356/2
By the way, I’m a baby boomer, so your view may vary.
USDA dietary guidelines is at odds with most recent research: Effects of Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets: A Randomized Trial NIH-funded study published in Annals of Internal Medicine shows a low-carbohydrate high-fat diet leads to improved cardiovascular health (specifically reduced triglycerides and increased HDL) when compared to a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet.
But that’s what politicized science leads to, right? I guess now we have to choose between being healthy and saving the planet…
The key to good health is physical exertion. Humans were made for it, it is what we need to do to stay healthy. So eat what you will, just get physical.
Reblogged this on RubinoWorld.
I like this tongue in cheek article…some people seem to be taking it a little too seriously.
From a European standpoint (and this is apolitical) I think even the social democrats don’t think much of him anymore. It’s easier to support or oppose someone than (and really that’s all Europeans do anymore – they rely on your presidents to sort things out; as in the young buck taking care of the senile old relatives) have no idea what he’s about.