Amazing 'Carbon Food Myths'

Food is a climate change issue.

It's amazing to say those words now and not get the same quizzical looks I got two years ago when I first gave presentations on this subject. More people accept this big idea, but with acceptance is a growing number of odd notions about how the food system does, and does not, contribute to climate change. Here are some of my favorite 'carbon food myths' uncovered recently, which I hope will provide readers with some good questions to ask their food providers: 

MYTH #1: Food transported in passenger-plane cargoes maximizes the use of a resource that is already there. This sounds logical at first, but it's totally false. Food transported in planes of any variety add weight. Weight adds fuel use. Fuel use = carbon emissions. There's no greater carbon emissions in transportation than that which belches out of airplanes. As consumers and chefs, we need to reduce the demand for products that must be transported long distances overnight and change suppliers' habits where possible.

MYTH #2: Becoming a vegan is the only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with food choices on a consumer level. Our research is showing that a relatively modest change in meat eaters' food choices would do more to mitigate climate change impacts of food production than if the number of vegans tripled in the U.S. What may be more important than this over the long run, however, is a greater regionalization of meat production so that animal waste can be used as nutrient inputs to crops rather than croplands having to depend on fertilizers and other additives produced thousands of miles away.

MYTH #3: Food miles don't matter. Yes they do. They may not be the only factor in calculating emissions associated with certain foods, but don't be fooled. We can't shorten the distance between two points, but we can increase the environmental responsibility of local production methods, including how food is distributed. Rather than de-emphasizing local food, we have to support its improvement and make it truly more 'local,' including where local farms get their inputs (feed and seed). A local cheese whose milk was transported 500 miles isn't really local food, is it?

- Helene S. York, Director, Bon Appetit Management Company Foundation 

Comments

[Devans00]

Very informative.

Thanks.

[CarbonFootprinter]

On the contrary...

(1) Weight is not the only issue with air freight. Empty planes consume a huge amount of fuel to start with. It would make no sense to fly planes that are only 75% full. Airlines like to fill up their planes to optimize cost (most of it is fuel cost, which correlates quite well with carbon emissions). To reduce overall carbon emissions from airplanes, we need to reduce the total demand for air transport in a meaningful way. Air transport of food commodities IS very damaging, but we need to look at the whole system.

(2) The GHG intensity of meat is an order of magnitude greater than plant-based foods on average. "Modest changes" in meat consumption is NOT going to make a big difference. We are now producing 4 times as much meat as in 1961 and 8 times as much seafood as in 1950 (according to Worldwatch - 2008 State of the World report). And the trend continues upward. Without cutting this down dramatically, there is no hope of making global food systems sustainable. Unfortunately, many of the "food sustainability" advocates in Western countries are unwilling to acknowledge this basic math. You talk about "regionalization", but have you studied the actual GHG savings by doing just that? Besides, we need solutions that can be scaled and adapted to every part of the world.

(3) Actually, food miles don't matter much as long as you are not using air transport. If you are buying meat, food miles matter very little (transport emissions are negligible compared to production emissions). Food miles really matter somewhat only for certain plant-based foods. Moreover, there is no guarantee that local production methods are going to be better. What if production methods are actually better elsewhere than in a local region? This does happen in the real world for cultural, economic, and climate reasons. (For a well-balanced critique, see Michael Specter's "Big Foot" in The New Yorker).

I've heard of your company's "low carbon diet", etc. I am glad you are thinking about all this and plan to do something about it, but please be careful about your calculations, assumptions and conclusions. If you have actual research on any of the above, please publish it in full so we can take a look at the assumptions, system boundaries and methodologies.

-CF

[michael]

I very much appreciate Bon Appetit's approach to sustainability. It is nice to see that this can exist with a large food service provider. Our industry is plagued with much irresponsible methods for procurement and no thought as to where our food actually comes from or how far it has traveled. If everyone took the approach of the -CF comments from March 10, we certainly wouldn't get anywhere. I don't agree with accepting the current model for our industrialized food producers.
-mt