Story by: Jessica Scott-Reid.
Jessica is a Canadian writer, animal advocate and plant-based food expert. Her work appears regularly in media across Canada and the US.
For climate-conscious consumers, choosing what to eat can feel like a tricky endeavour. With both food trends and environmental research continually evolving, and industry marketing often getting in the way, it can be difficult to decipher what the best choices are for our planet and health. An increasing number of climate scientists have been pointing to a major shift away from animal proteins, and an increase in the consumption of plant proteins, as imminently necessary for stalling global warming. Others have taken to defending the use of animals, their contribution to the land, focusing instead on the importance of buying local. The latter has led to lobby groups jumping on the cause to profess that beef is not the problem, but importing plant foods may be. So what is the truth, in the battle between imported beans and local beef?
Canadian environmental researcher Nicholas Carter, believes that while buying local animal products is often touted as an eco-friendly option, “a reason to feel good, choosing something that is local because it’s better for the environment,” in truth, he says, “it’s really an economic argument, above anything else." Carter adds that 'eat local' trends, such as the 100 Mile Diet, are not supported by any environmental research. Instead, he cites the work of top environmental researchers, Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek, who in 2018 conducted a study of 40,000 commercial farms across 119 countries, representing 90% of all food products. “They concluded that even the highest-impact vegetable, like tofu for example, still emits less than the lowest-impact animal protein.” In other words, says Carter, “a kilo of soy shipped halfway round the world inflicts much less atmospheric harm than a kilo of chicken or pork or beef reared on the local farm.”
A 2008 study entitled, Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States, offers important context for these conclusions. Authors Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews found that “GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption,” and that, “transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%.”
In other words, as acclaimed UK writer and environmental activist, George Monbiot, echoed in a recent article for New Scientist: “in discussing the carbon costs of food, we have greatly exaggerated the role of transport and greatly downplayed the impacts of land use.” Monbiot cites a research letter published in the journal Nature, entitled, Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change, stating, “a team led by Timothy Searchinger of Princeton University examined the impact of various foodstuffs in terms of carbon. This shows that protein from beef is 73 times worse than protein from soya.” Monbiot equates the carbon footprint of a kilogram of beef to the emissions “of a passenger flying from London to New York and back.”
However, atmospheric impact is only one area of concern when it comes to food production. Soil health and regeneration is another, and where grazing (and manure-creating) cattle often enter back into the conversation. Some studies have shown that grass-fed cows may have an even greater ecological footprint than industrial farmed cows, due to their slower growth rate (in turn creating more methane) and required land use. Often missing from these discussions is the prospect of returning animals to the land for regenerative purposes, without slaughtering and selling them for meat, or the option of re-wilding lands without domesticated animals, to effectively trap emissions.
Mono-cropping is another concern. As popular eco-blogger and soil health advocate Holly Rose, states, “more often than not, our purchases encourage intensive arable food production of pesticide-drenched monocultures which are hostile to wildlife, biodiversity, soil health, microbe health, human health, and long-term food security.” In order to minimize these environmental impacts via our food purchases, Rose suggests seeking out certain food seals. “While no single seal offers a promise of absolute perfection,” she says, “a combination of the following might indicate you're doing a little less harm: regenerative organic, Soil Association Certified Organic, organic, fairtrade, rainforest alliance, and non-GMO project verified.” Overall, Rose says the best way to source eco-friendly plant foods, including beans, is to seek out and support local farms working regeneratively and fairly, whenever possible.
For those of us in regions where this is not possible, however, or at least not year round, it is helpful to know that sourcing imported plant proteins, in particular from farms working sustainably or regeneratively, offers a substantially more eco-friendly alternative to sourcing harmful animal based foods.