MEAT AT A DISTANCE: Why imported veg is still more ‘sustainable’ than local meat
As a rule of thumb, one can be almost certain that meat products, local or not, are less sustainable than vegetables imported even from the furthest point of the globe.
TAMAS LESTER: There is evidence to suggest that local food production and consumption has positive impacts on employment, health, community development, local economies, humanitarian aid, biodiversity and more. At the same time, it is not possible to regard all locally sourced products as more sustainable than food imported from distant places.
Before it gets on our plate, food typically goes through several months of preparation, production, storage and distribution. The ecological efficiency of this cycle depends on several factors such as the quality of soil, weather conditions, suitability of climate, methods of production and storage.
So to better understand the planetary impact of our diet, we need to evaluate our food choices from a variety of perspectives. And while the shipping distance offers one variable, it is not the only one. As a matter of fact, transport emissions are relatively small for most food items, accounting only for about 10% of all emissions…
According to a study in Science, summarized by Our World in Data in the chart above, the two biggest culprits in greenhouse gas emissions are changes in land use such as converting forests into fields or pasture, and farming processes. The latter includes methane emissions from ruminating animals and rice production, emissions from organic or synthetic fertilizers, and machinery.
Together, these two factors make up more than 80% of the footprint for most foods, a staggering amount compared to the 10% from transport. Likewise, emissions are comparatively negligible from all other post-production activities combined, including processing, retail, and packaging…
One major challenge today is an overall increase in demand for meat products. The infographic clearly shows the vast emissions differences between plant-based and animal sources, with beef herd at the very top (60 kg CO₂ equivalent per kilo) and nut trees at the lowest end of the scale (just 0.3 kg CO₂ equivalent per kilo, partly because nut trees often replace croplands and then store carbon in the trees).
Almost without exception, meat items score extremely badly. Fishing seems to do better than other meat industries at 3-5 kg CO₂ equivalent per kilo, but it is now being intensely criticsed for plastic pollution and other harms. Nonetheless, while plant-based items are generally far more sustainable, some also score poorly such as coffee, cocoa and palm oil…
So sustainable buying is not as straightforward as simply checking whether an item is locally sourced or not. Due to the lack of a standardized footprint labeling system, catering more sustainable foods requires the consideration of multiple factors.
As a rule of thumb, one can be almost certain that meat products, local or not, are less sustainable than vegetables imported even from the furthest point of the globe. Medical or ethical considerations aside, emissions from meat are simply too high, a fact which makes food miles a negligible part of the comparison. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: