Article 2/6 — read the introductory post to this article series here. This article series is an invitation for people in the United States who are food-secure to examine their current eating habits and consider how food choices can empower their physical and spiritual health.
Summary: Eliminating animal agriculture in the US would only make a small dent in total US GHG emissions, it would make feeding the entire US population without nutrient supplementation unfeasible, and it would cause devastating cultural and environmental impacts. Agriculture has a role to play in climate change mitigation, but diets in the US need to change. High-income countries consume a disproportionately large amount of meat compared to low income countries. This means high-consuming countries have a great power and responsibility to lower agriculture-associated GHG emissions. Starting with small shifts like reducing meat intake 1-2 days per week, reducing food waste and composting can be a way to benefit the health of ourselves and our planet. Eating with intention can build virtue and cultivate love.
“[Patriarch Bartholomew] has drawn attention to the ethical and spiritual roots of environmental problems, which require that we look for solutions not only in technology but in a change of humanity; otherwise we would be dealing merely with symptoms. He asks us to replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism which «entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what God’s world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed and compulsion.» As Christians, we are also called «to accept the world as a sacrament of communion, as a way of sharing with God and our neighbours on a global scale. »” 1
To better understand the specific impact of animal agriculture in the United States, White and Hall (2017) conducted a study modeling the US agricultural system without any animals. At first glance, it seems great: 28% fewer US agricultural GHG emissions, 23% more food, and diets that lower coronary heart disease and obesity risk (among a multitude of other health complications).2 However, this dramatic shift in US agriculture decreases total US GHG emissions by a very undramatic 2.6%, and it comes with substantial tradeoffs concerning both human and environmental health.
“Overall, the removal of animals resulted in diets that are nonviable in the long or short term to support the nutritional needs of the US population without nutrient supplementation.”2 An individual can most certainly consume a non-supplemented plant-only diet that meets nutritional requirements, though accomplishing this for the entire US population may be unfeasible.# This is because climate and soil type limit the ability to grow the crop types required for providing enough essential micronutrients to an entire population. In addition to insufficient essential micronutrients, these plant-only diets with low GHG emissions also typically have high sugar content and energy excess, which could exacerbate the already high rate of obesity in America (42.2%).2,3 Even further, a larger amount of plant-only foods in this model must be consumed to gain a comparable amount of nutrients as a diet with animal products.2
So, dismantling the livestock industry clearly isn’t the answer due to population dietary reasons (and for a variety of other social and environmental impacts which will be explored later on). Machovina et al. (2015) instead proposes a substantial reduction in animal product consumption from 17% to 10% or less of global calories, which will require a much larger reduction in daily animal product consumption on the part of high-income countries.4,5 On average, all high-income countries consume 224g of meat per person per day, while all low-income countries consume an average of 47g.6 This translates to a global average of eating 101g of meat, a portion “the size of a deck of playing cards or smaller,” per person per day.4,6 McMichael et al. (2007) suggests a total limit of 90 g per day, with no more than 50 g per day of ruminant meat (beef, sheep, and goat). This aligns with the World Cancer Research Fund’s recommendation to consume no more than 350-500 g cooked red meat per week due to its connection to colorectal cancer.7 Red meat consumption has also been linked to breast cancer,6 and directly associated with type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease.8 Along with health benefits from reducing ruminant meat, there are environmental benefits. Per gram of protein, ruminants utilize and produce more than 20 times more land area and GHG emissions than legumes, and 4-6 times more land area and GHG emissions than dairy operations.8 Besides plant-only foods, chicken, aquaculture and insects are low-GHG emitting alternatives for protein.4
The World Resources Institute modeled the food availability, land use and GHG emissions impact of four possible diet scenarios.9^ The most promising diet was reduction in ruminant meat by the highest-consuming populations: United States, Canada, Europe, Latin America, and the former Soviet Union. In 2010, these regions (a total of ¼ of the world population), consumed over half of the world’s ruminant meat supply. To achieve a 30% reduction, North America and Russia would need to decrease consumption by 40%, Brazil by 60%, and Europe by 22% as compared to 2010 levels. This 30% global reduction in ruminant meat production would still allow for a 32% increase in demand for ruminant meat between 2010 and 2050 (a much more sustainable increase than the WRI’s predicted 88% increase if no actions are taken). A large decrease in land use and GHG emissions could be achieved through either replacement with plant-based foods or replacement of beef with chicken and pork. While a 30% global reduction is “highly ambitious,” WRI is confident at least a 10% reduction in global ruminant meat production is possible, but only with committed international efforts.
Achieving this reduction begins with committed individual efforts. A good place to start is comparing the amount of meat — especially ruminant meat — that we eat each day with the daily limits set forth by McMichael et al. (2007) and the World Cancer Research Fund mentioned above. This presentation* hosted by the Catholic Climate Covenant titled “How Our Food Choices Can Save the Planet” offers several helpful suggestions and resources for beginning a planet-friendly diet. They recommend starting with eliminating meat 1-2 days per week for “Meatless Mondays” and fasting on Fridays. Even St. Francis of Assisi believed in the importance of fasting from meat:
“All should abstain from eating meat except on Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, on account of illness or weakness, and on special feast days. When there is no fasting, they may eat cheese and eggs. And when they are with religious in their convent homes, they may eat whatever is served to them. Let all be temperate whenever they eat and drink.” – Francis of Assisi: The Essential Writings. In His Own Words. “The First Rule of the Third Order.”
Kelly Moltzen from the Interfaith Public Health Network mentions that shifting from current North American diets (which tend to include an excess of red meat, eggs, poultry, dairy and starchy vegetables, but not enough whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits, vegetables and fish) to healthier recommended diets is estimated to improve health and prevent 11 million deaths per year (19-24% of total adult deaths). Another simple switch that can be made is consuming more Fair Trade Certified products, which support sustainable farming and ensure the farmers supplying such products are treated with dignity and respect.
Along with reducing meat intake, we must hold ourselves accountable for reducing food waste. In the words of Pope Francis, “whenever food is thrown out it is as if it were stolen from the table of the poor.”1 In 2009, 24% of the world’s calories amounting to nearly $1 trillion USD each year were wasted.8 In the United Stated, we waste 31% (more than $161 billion worth in 2010) of food each year.4 In comparison to India, for example, we waste about 97 times the amount of kcal per person per day in beef than India does in vegetables and pork, which translates to wasting about 7-8 times more land.4
Landfills are the third-largest contributor to anthropogenic CH4 emissions (17.4% total CH4 emissions) in the United States.11 Between 1990 and 2018, landfill methane emissions decreased by 40%, corresponding with more gas collection and control from landfills plus a decrease in the amount of compostable material entering landfills.11 This shows that composting matters, so it is worth the effort to look into local composting services for households and especially for schools, churches and other communities. In addition to lowering the amount of waste in landfills that would otherwise release methane, composting kills pathogens, captures carbon and can be sold as an organic replacement of chemical fertilizers.11 Recall that God created man from dust. Maybe soil is the key to reviving our life-sustaining ecosystems…
It may take years to develop the technology and implement the policies needed to create a more sustainable livestock industry on a global scale, but we can change our eating and waste habits today. May we all be given the grace to “replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing.”1 Let our fasting be an act of courageous love toward our neighbors, to this earth, and to God. Fasting will transcend simply “giving up” and become a way for each of us to give – to give our neighbors nourishment, our planet restoration, and our God gratitude.
# Without animal agriculture, the amount of calcium, three fatty acids (arachidonic, eicosapentaenoic/EPA, and docosahexaenoic/DHA), and two vitamins (A and B12) required to sustain the US population were not met using this model.2 Without supplementation or food fortification, animal products are the most prevalent source of these three fatty acids and the only source of vitamin B12. Two of these animal-derived fatty acids (EPA and DHA) are recommended by the USDA and FAO/World Health Organization to actually reduce cardiovascular disease and promote infant visual and cognitive development.2 The third fatty acid, arachidonic acid, is recommended with DHA to support visual acuity.2
^ The “Skinny Diet” explored the impact of a 2% global calorie reduction in order to halve the number of obese and overweight people. While this diet was beneficial for human health, the environmental benefits were only “modest.” The “Less Animal-Based Foods Diet” modeling a 10% and 30% global replacement of animal products with plant-based alternatives showed promising environmental impacts, though would be difficult to implement. Because high-income countries consume such a disproportionately high amount of meat, to achieve a 30% global average reduction, people in North America and Europe would need to reduce animal product consumption by 50%. Even if those entire populations became vegetarian, animal product consumption would only decrease by 25% since dairy and eggs would still be in high demand. The “Less Meat Diet” capped consumption of all meat calories at 372 or 238 kcal/person/day and the “Less Ruminant Meat Diet” targeted a reduction in consumption of ruminant, but not monogastric, meat.
* Jillian Semaan from Earth Day Network mentions in this video that according to scientists “we have less than 50-60 years of farming [left] on this planet.” Topsoil degradation is certainly a problem that should be urgently addressed, though claims such as these are not supported by primary literature. Check out this article for more information.
References:
- FRANCIS, Encyclical LetterLadauto Si’ (24 May 2015).
- White, RR & Hall, MB. Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture. PNAS (2017) E10301-E10308.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Adult Obesity Facts. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html. Accessed Jun 26, 2020.
- Machovina B, Feeley, KJ, Ripple, WJ. 2015. Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Sci Total Environ 536 (2015) 419–431.
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Livestock production and climate change. Available at: http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/production-resources/module-b2-livestock/chapter-b2-1/en/ – c546108. Accessed Jun 1, 2020.
- McMichael, AJ, Powles JW, Butler, CD, Uauy R. Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. Lancet 2007; 370: 1253–63. DOI:10.1016/S0140- 6736(07)61256-2
- World Cancer Research Fund. Limit Red and Processed Meat. Available at: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/recommendations/limit-red-processed-meat. Accessed Jun 20, 2020.
- Searchinger, T, Waite, R, Hanson C, Ranganathan J. Matthews, E (ed.). Creating a Sustainable Food Future: A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050. July, 2019.
- World Resources Institute. World Resources Report: Creating a sustainable food future. July, 2019. Available at: https://research.wri.org/wrr-food. Accessed Jun 1, 2020.
- United States Department of Agriculture. Available at: https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/faqs.htm. Accessed Jun 20, 2020.
- United States Environmental Protection Agency 430-R-20-002. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2018. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. Accessed Jun 20, 2020.
