Yuuuummmmm, I think I'll scramble a couple right now!! Tony On 10/21/08, Margaret McCasland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michael Pollan was interviewed on Fresh Air (NPR.org to listen) > yesterday, and--as usual--did a great job of discussing why the WAY > food is raised matters re: GHG and other ecological and health > reasons. It is not just "meat vs veggies." Soy- and corn-based foods > from industrially-farmed commodity crops (much of what you find in > GreenStar) are not raised ecologically on many counts. MIXED farms-- > with plants and animals feeding and fertilizing each other--can be > much more ecological. > > I personally don't eat red meat, but animals that evolved as grazers > that actually feed primarily on grass (which they fertilize as they > walk from spot to spot) are not nearly the problem that our current > meat (beef, pork, poultry) production poses with its petroleum-based > industrial agriculture. And a return to small scale mixed crop farms > could happen in most parts of the US--except places where folks maybe > shouldn't be living, like former deserts (where irrigation and air > conditioning gobble up resources). > > In any case, we tend to eat much more protein than we need: I like the > image of a serving the size of a deck of cards. > > Love those local eggs with ORANGE yolks (full of Vitamin D) from > chickens running in the sunshine around eating bugs! > > > Margaret > > > On Oct 21, 2008, at 5:13 AM, Megan M. Gregory wrote: > > > Eric, > > > > You raise a great point on the need to really think through the > > entire life cycle of the food that we eat. I am passing along some > > articles that I've come across on the climate impacts of food > > choices that address the question of if it is better to "eat locally > > or eat differently." There has certainly been quite a bit of > > discussion on this listserv and even in the mainstream media about > > eating local. There are certainly many reasons to eat local. One > > of the most commonly cited ones is reducing the "food-miles" from > > where the food was produced to where it is purchased and consumed, > > and thus (supposedly) reducing greenhouse gas emissions and climate > > change impacts associated with transport of the food. > > > > These articles, however, show that "food-miles" from the farm or > > production facility to the point of purchase by consumers actually > > forms a very small part of the climate or greenhouse gas impacts of > > what we eat (about 4%). Thus, those who are concerned about the > > effects of their food choices on global climate change must also > > consider factors such as: > > -- the agricultural and industrial practices used to grow and > > harvest the food (83% of GHG impacts) > > -- the total supply-chain transportation (such as transport of feed > > to animal production facilities, etc.) (11% of GHG impacts) > > > > When these are taken into consideration, a convincing case can be > > made that for limiting GHG emissions, a dietary shift away from red > > meat and dairy and towards vegetables and grains is probably the > > most important thing that an environmentally conscious consumer can > > do -- even more important than buying local. > > > > ---------------------------------- > > > > The attached article, "Is it better to eat locally, or to eat > > differently?" is a transcript of an NPR program I heard with a > > scientist from Carnegie Mellon University. The second article, "Do > > Food Miles Matter?" ( > http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2008/apr/science/ee_foodmiles.html > ) > > is the "newsfeed" on the study he did from the journal > > Environmental Science and technology, in which it was published. > > Finally, the PDF of the whole article, "Food-Miles and the Relative > > Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States," can be found > > at: > http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/2008/42/i10/pdf/es702969f.pdf > > . > > > > Basically, the gist of the study (as far as I can tell) is that for > > reducing greenhouse gas impact of food choices, buying local is only > > one part of the solution. Actually, transportation from producer to > > retailer accounts for only 4% of the total GHG impact of foods (all > > transportation accounts for 11%). More significant are the > > agricultural and industrial practices that go into growing and > > harvesting food, which are responsible for 83% of the GHG impacts of > > food. This study differs from many others on GHG emissions and food > > choices by considering not only CO2, but other GHGs like CH4 > > (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide), which are emitted in smaller > > quantities much are much more potent than CO2. By far the most GHG- > > intensive foods are red meat and dairy, largely due to the methane > > emissions from ruminant digestion and manure, and the nitrous oxide > > emissions from decomposing fertilizers and manure. According to > > this author, shifting calories toward vegetables has the biggest > > impact on reducing GHG emissions. Supposedly, if you shift calories > > from red meat and dairy to vegetables just one day per week you save > > more GHG gas emissions than if you eliminated ALL food delivery > > miles, according to his analysis. > > > > Of course, this is not to say not to eat local ... there ARE GHG > > savings as well as other benefits, like knowing the farmer's > > production practices (which influence soil, water, animal and human > > health, etc.), and supporting local rural development. However, I > > think that it is good for us to really look at the data and the > > complete life-cycle impact of our consumption in order to make the > > choices and changes that will have the greatest positive effects on > > the environment and society. > > > > Thanks to all for providing a space for dialogue on living more > > sustainable lifestyles! > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Megan Gregory > > > > -- > > Megan M. Gregory > > > > Graduate Research Assistant, The Agroecology Lab > > Cornell University > > Ithaca, NY 14853 > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > (847)287-7794 > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Hi folks, > >> I recall having seen on this list, a year or so ago, a reference to > >> a popular article or two that purported to compare the > >> comprehensive impacts of foods that were raised locally with those > >> shipped from afar. The point was to demonstrate that it is not > >> always obvious what is less environmentally damaging to produce > >> locally or trade from a distance. If anyone recalls that > >> reference, I would appreciate a reminder. I have a faculty friend > >> at Bucknell who is assembling a collection of popular press food > >> policy related materials and would like to use one on that topic. > >> Thanks, Eric > >> Eric Clay, M.Div., Ph.D. > >> Community Coach > >> Shared Journeys, Inc. > >> 832 North Aurora Street > >> Ithaca, NY 14850 > >> 607-592-6874 > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >> SHARED JOURNEYS > >> That all may flourish and none be excluded > >> **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your > >> destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out ( > http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002 > >> ) > >> > > _______________________________________________ > For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, > please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ > > RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: > [email protected] > http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins > free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org >
-- Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law. - Buddha _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
