'Low carbon diet' a healthy option for Earth

Mar 30, 2009 By Suzanne Bohan

A hungry student at the University of San Francisco earlier this month couldn't find a few college staples at the campus eatery -- a juicy hamburger and a cheesy slice of pizza.

March 10 was "Low Carbon Diet Day," and beef and cheese were off the menu.

With 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gases emitted by livestock raised for meat and dairy products -- more than cars, trucks, ships and planes combined, according to a United Nations report -- more food purveyors are launching initiatives to lower their "food carbon footprint."

Bon Appetit, a food service company in Palo Alto, Calif., that runs the USF cafeteria and 400 other institutional cafes, is leading the charge. It's set a goal of reducing its meat and cheese offerings by 25 percent.

Sodexo, a multinational food service provider, in two months will release its goals for reducing the carbon output of its operations, in part by promoting more vegetarian and vegan items, said Arlin Wasserman, vice president of corporate citizenship.

Hospitals are joining the action, too. Physicians for Social Responsibility's Bay Area chapter last month launched its "Balanced Menu" initiative at Kaiser Permanente, John Muir, UC San Francisco and Veterans Affairs medical centers, among other hospitals. The menu scales back on meat items, with cost savings used to buy higher-quality meats also thought to leave a lower carbon footprint, such as grass-fed beef.

"We see this as real mitigation for hospitals," said Lucia Sayre, program director for the physicians' organization. "And they see it that way, too."

With the burgeoning knowledge that are linked to all aspects of food production, it's becoming clear that buying locally isn't enough to make a major dent in carbon emissions.

Bon Appetit, for example, for years has given purchasing priority to farmers growing crops within a 150-mile radius of the Bay Area.

But cloven-hoofed, cud-chewing animals, so-called ruminants like cows, sheep and goats -- raised for meat and dairy products -- release copious amounts of methane and nitrous oxide during their digestion processes. So the company has expanded its focus beyond simply buying from nearby sources, because only about 5 percent of a food's carbon footprint comes from transportation emissions, according to studies.

"The highest priority is the reduction of livestock that are ruminants, and all products made from cheese," said Helene York, director of the Bon Appetit Management Company Foundation and developer of the firm's "Low Carbon Diet" initiative. Greenhouse gases linked to food production, such as methane, are sometimes measured as "carbon equivalents," and efforts to reduce these emissions use "carbon" in their monikers.

According to a 2006 United Nations report, "Livestock's Long Shadow," the livestock sector is responsible for 37 percent of human-caused methane release, which is 23 times more potent a heat-trapping gas than carbon dioxide. Livestock emit 65 percent of all human-caused nitrous oxide, which is nearly 300 times the potency of carbon dioxide.

Yet with the world's growing population, demand for meat is expected to more than double by 2050 from 2000 levels, and dairy production almost as much. The U.N. report notes that demand needs to drop 50 percent by 2050 to simply maintain current levels of greenhouse gas emissions linked to dairy and meat livestock.

But it doesn't have to be a dull endeavor of adapting to a diet of tofu and beans for protein. In fact, York said some of Bon Appetit's clients don't believe that human-caused climate change is under way, but they still go along with the program.

"They don't mind the changes to the menu, because it tastes good and it costs less," she said.

On "Low Carbon Diet Day" at USF, turkey burgers replaced beef burgers, and the event provided an opportunity to showcase tasty alternatives, York said. Instead of putting cheese on the free-range-grown turkey burgers, students scooped on guacamole, salsa, onion and cucumber relish or chipotle sauce.

The cheeseless pizza featured such toppings as eggplant and onion, and spiced chicken. "We try to put other flavors out front," said chef Jon Hall. On days when the cafeteria does serve cheese pizza, it's limited to about 5 ounces per pizza, he added.

At Sodexo, which runs 29,000 food-service venues worldwide for corporate and institutional clients -- serving 10 million people daily _ the company assumes full responsibility for lowering its greenhouse gas emissions, so customers can choose any offerings with a clean conscience, said Wasserman, the Sodexo executive.

"There's a lot of discussion about hamburgers and global warming," he said. "But a lot of people are not going to get very mobilized by it."

With the company focused on tightening its operations and selecting suppliers that are also reducing emissions, greenhouse gas declines happen behind the scenes.

"Whatever choice they make, customers will get a year-over-year reduction, whether or not they choose a salad or a hamburger," Wasserman said.

Meat and dairy industry representatives defended their products against the climate-change rap against their sectors.

Andrea Garen, a registered dietitian with the California Dairy Council, counseled consumers to consider nutritional needs, since the federal government advises regular dairy consumption in its food pyramid.

"There's a lot of room for individuals to make their own choices, ones that reflect their values," she said. "But as soon as you eliminate an entire group of food, you affect nutrition."

A National Cattlemen's Beef Association spokeswoman said that critics of beef production's ecosystem effect fail to factor in the environmentally beneficial role of grazing cattle. That includes pastureland absorbing carbon dioxide as it regrows after grazing.

That's debatable, said Gail Feenstra, a food systems analyst with the University of California Davis who's embarking on a project to measure greenhouse gases linked to all aspects of producing agricultural products in California, including feed, fertilizer, energy, transportation and numerous other facets.

Perhaps if cattle were grazing only on unfertilized grasslands, they might provide a net carbon benefit. "However, the proportion of cattle raised in this manner is extremely small," Feenstra said.

And while the United States starts to catch up with Europe, Japan and other countries in assessing the carbon footprint of its food system, Bon Appetit's York said there's still enough known to justify a focus on meat and dairy.

"Meat and cheese are high carbon foods, no matter how you look at it," she said.

___

GREENHOUSE GASES BY THE NUMBERS

The livestock sector accounts for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and cattle are the largest contributor.

Producing a kilogram of beef creates 16 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents. That's four times higher than pork, and 10 times higher than poultry.

By swapping chicken for beef, greenhouse gases generated by the meat's production drop 70 percent.

Source: Nathan Pelletier, Dalhousie University, Canada

___

(c) 2009, Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Calif.).
Visit the Contra Costa Times on the Web at www.contracostatimes.com
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Explore further: Implications for the fate of green fertilizers

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Fighting global warming — at the dinner table

May 05, 2008

Substituting chicken, fish, or vegetables for red meat just once a week can help combat climate change — even more dramatically than buying locally sourced food, according to scientists in Pennsylvania who ...

Scientists study how climate change impacts food production

Apr 21, 2008

The old adage, “We are what we eat,’’ may be the latest recipe for success when it comes to curbing the perils of global climate warming. Despite the recent popular attention to the distance that food travels from ...

Methane from microbes: a fuel for the future

Dec 10, 2007

Microbes could provide a clean, renewable energy source and use up carbon dioxide in the process, suggested Dr James Chong at a Science Media Centre press briefing today.

Recommended for you

Implications for the fate of green fertilizers

20 minutes ago

The use of green fertilizers is a practice that has been around since humans first began growing food, but researchers are warning that modern techniques for the creation of these fertilizers could have implications ...

Ditching coal a massive step to climate goal: experts

1 hour ago

Phasing out coal as an electricity source by 2050 would bring the world 0.5 degrees Celsius closer to the UN's targeted cap for climate warming, an analysis said on the eve of Tuesday's UN climate summit.

Monitoring heavy metals using mussels

4 hours ago

A research team in Malaysia has concluded that caged mussels are useful for monitoring heavy metal contamination in coastal waters in the Strait of Johore. Initial results indicate more pollution in the eastern ...

Climate change report identifies 'the most vulnerable'

6 hours ago

Extreme weather events leave populations with not enough food both in the short- and the long-term. A new report by the Environmental Change Institute (ECI) at the School of Geography and the Environment ...

User comments : 13

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Sophos
5 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2009
I predict poor 2009 sales for Sodexo and Bon Appetit, sell sell sell

LOL
jonnyboy
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2009
They left out the most important comparison number. Raising humans is 30-50 times higher than beef. If they are so worried about it, the most important change they could make would be to not have children and then eliminate themselves.
mikiwud
2.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2009
jonnyboy,
Canabalism, that's the complete answer. Food AND lower the population. Actually it's no more stupid than some of the "cures" that have been suggested for the non existant man made global warming.
StanB
5 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2009
Ok....how many students, upon seeing the lack of their food preference, climbed into their CO2 spewing cars and drove over to the nearest McDonald's drive-thru for a big juice burger and trans-fat laden fries?

What a joke. You increase CO2 emissions by "going green."
GrayMouser
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2009
Food Nazis strike again!
mikiwud
2.2 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2009
Dickheads!
All life forms are carbon based, get used to it.
To cut back is not natural.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2009
Dickheads!

All life forms are carbon based, get used to it.

To cut back is not natural.


Actually there are a few potential non-carbon based lifeforms. None that we've found as far as I know, but they're possible.
freethinking
3 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2009
Environmentalist idiots is what I call them. Less food trade, less wealth, less wealth, more poverty, more poverty more pollution.
Lets see, turn off lights, dont drive, dont eat meat, no cheese, no food from anywhere thats not close.
How about not going to movies then the environmental idiot movie stars will be out of work, and cant afford their private jets and mansions.
How about not supporting Al Gore? No more conferences where he flys in on his jets. Force him to sell his mansions as well.
Egnite
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2009
"With 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gases emitted by livestock raised for meat and dairy products"

Whoop-dee-doo! And where does this flatulence come from? Eating vegetation? And what happens when they don't eat vegetation? It rots and still releases greenhouse gases. What other pathetic excuses will they think of in order to create future taxes?
holly_a
1 / 5 (3) May 07, 2009
firstly... jonnyboy your comment is rediculous! which would the general public be more pissed off about? if they made you give up your right to eat meat or if they made you give up your right to have children... i think its a no brainer!
the only reason you are all so pissed off is because you dont want to change your ways of living... but soon you will have to! would you rather live in a low carbon emissions world where you cant use your car, or a low methane world where you cant eat cheese and meat?

freethinking... you are quite right that farmers will be put out of jobs... but im sure they can switch to crop farming. but with the ethiopian famine killing 80,000 people over 20 years, described as hell on earth, as a direct effect of global dimming, which cant be corrected until global warming is as wel, i think youll find if you do your research... it is worth it!
Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) May 07, 2009
the only reason you are all so pissed off is because you dont want to change your ways of living... but soon you will have to! would you rather live in a low carbon emissions world where you cant use your car, or a low methane world where you cant eat cheese and meat?
I could care less about either of the two. Methane occupies less than 0.000001% of the atmosphere.

CO2 thus far has not been proven to be the "earth killer" that misinformists, (that's right, our new term for your ilk), claim it to be.



freethinking... you are quite right that farmers will be put out of jobs... but im sure they can switch to crop farming. but with the ethiopian famine killing 80,000 people over 20 years, described as hell on earth, as a direct effect of global dimming, which cant be corrected until global warming is as wel, i think youll find if you do your research... it is worth it!
How exactly does a colorless, completely transparent gas, that only has absorption spectra in Infrared, (read:outbound), radiation contribute to global dimming, (read:incomming decrease)?

jonnyboy
1 / 5 (2) May 22, 2009
the only reason you are all so pissed off is because you dont want to change your ways of living... but soon you will have to! would you rather live in a low carbon emissions world where you cant use your car, or a low methane world where you cant eat cheese and meat?
I could care less about either of the two. Methane occupies less than 0.000001% of the atmosphere.



CO2 thus far has not been proven to be the "earth killer" that misinformists, (that's right, our new term for your ilk), claim it to be.







freethinking... you are quite right that farmers will be put out of jobs... but im sure they can switch to crop farming. but with the ethiopian famine killing 80,000 people over 20 years, described as hell on earth, as a direct effect of global dimming, which cant be corrected until global warming is as wel, i think youll find if you do your research... it is worth it!
How exactly does a colorless, completely transparent gas, that only has absorption spectra in Infrared, (read:outbound), radiation contribute to global dimming, (read:incomming decrease)?


I was going to respond to Holly but , as usual, Velanarris said it all. Good job.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2009
I was going to respond to Holly but , as usual, Velanarris said it all. Good job.
Nope I left enough room to add this one:

Considering the CO2 legislation has made it more profitable for farmers to grow trees on their arable land, how exactly is it helping feed people who live in a dessert?

Ethiopia has very little arable land, so a drough over a single 100 square mile range has devastating effect on the country. Yet, while the US sits on some of the greatest land ever, we refuse to grow surplus to handle even our own hungry, let alone those of other nations.

Thank you AGW legislation, you've killed more people than you'll ever save.