Infographics scapegoating beef usually miss the big picture
The internet is a powerful tool to help us learn more about virtually any subject with a few keystrokes. When information is misleading and unfounded, however, dangerous misconceptions can arise.
Unfortunately, this is increasingly the case when it comes to information about beef’s climate impact on various websites including major media outlets, academic institutions, non-profits, and public resources.
Recently, Our World in Data published a reductive and misleading article attempting to measure the carbon footprint of 29 food items, comparing them on a kilogram-based comparison. The article claims that one kilogram of beef is responsible for 60 kilograms of GHG while one kilogram of peas only emits one kilogram of GHG. It also claims that most GHG emissions come from land-use changes and processes at the farm stage, which encompasses things like fertilizer application.
“The Our World in Data graph comparing various food groups might be well-meaning, but unfortunately, it is flawed. Some foods mainly emit long-lived climate pollutants such as CO2 and nitrous oxide, while others (e.g., beef and lamb) emit the short-lived pollutant methane,” Dr. Frank Mitloehner, professor and air quality extension specialist with the UC Davis department of animal science, wrote to Sacred Cow via email. Mitloehner recently took to Twitter to explain why infographics estimating the carbon footprint for livestock often get it wrong. Major companies like Starbucks, Impossible Foods, and EAT-Lancet are using misguided analyses to scapegoat beef and to make their products appear more carbon friendly.
“The data underlying the graph simply uses a 28 conversion factor for methane. Methane from ruminant livestock is a flow gas that has a lifespan of one decade – it is produced and destroyed at approximately the same rate. An appropriate graph would look at the warming effect of various foods and not compare them based on CO2 equivalent units.”
As recently discussed in a partial excerpt from the upcoming book Sacred cow: The case for (Better) Meat on the blog, cow farts aren’t ruining the planet. In fact, with well-managed grazing livestock have been shown to help sequester carbon. White Oak Pastures recently conducted a third-party life cycle assessment of its operation which confirmed that it is sequestering more carbon in its soil than its pasture-raised cows emit during their lifetimes.
Our World in Data also conveniently disregarded a few key aspects regarding the unique production aspects of the 29 food products that it compared.
At the bottom of the ranking, Our World in Data lists nuts claiming that they have a negative land-use change because nuts are replacing croplands and carbon is stored in the trees. This fails to account for the significant amount of water that is required to produce many nut crops.
The UCSF Office of Sustainability wrote about a study concluding that it takes 15 gallons of water to produce just 16 almonds. With two billion almonds produced in California alone, the thirsty crop takes a serious toll on water resources in the state. There have also been reports of farmers in California clearing land to plant more orchards to take advantage of the rising demand for nuts, particularly in Asia.
Beef is far from the water hog that some resources make it out to be, with 94% of the water used to produce beef coming from natural rainfall. This figure increases to 97% for grass-finished beef.
When it comes to land-use change, the Our World in Data article attributes the highest impact to beef, which completely fails to account for the rehabilitative impact that grazing animals can have on ecosystems. Not to mention the serious benefits to be derived from manure deposits, which provide a natural source of fertilizer to boost organic matter and improve soil health.
As the UN FAO has noted, 80% of the global agricultural land is grassland and over half of that area cannot be converted to cropland. This means, contrary to the Our World in Data article’s position, that livestock are using land that couldn’t be used for crop production.
There are significant nutritional differences that the infographic overlooks, as well. Comparing these 29 food items on a kilo for kilo basis does not account for the significant differences in nutrient content between beef and other food sources. Sugar scored better than beef, but does this mean it’s “better” to eat sugar? Animal protein, especially beef, contains essential nutrients not found in plants. We simply cannot swap out all of our animal products for soy and peas. To produce enough peas and soy to satisfy the world’s protein needs would require producing massive quantities of soy and peas in monoculture systems that are likely heavily dependent on chemical inputs. Genetically modified soybeans are dependent on chemical inputs like glyphosate, synthetic fertilizer, diesel-powered heavy equipment, and soil practices that lead to runoff and poor quality.
Finally, while the article is correct in pointing out that pigs and poultry are not ruminant animals, it fails to account for the fact that both types of protein are largely produced in confinement systems. People often claim that pigs and chickens require less land for production but that is because they are raised indoors. Cattle, on the other hand, begin their lives on pasture while cows (females) will live their entire lives on pasture. On average, most cattle that are sent to the feedlot for finishing are there for six months or less. Over the span of their entire life, grain only accounts for approximately 10 - 13% of the diet for beef cattle. The rest is grass and other fibrous material like corn stalks left over from the ethanol industry that would simply decompose and emit greenhouse gases if we didn’t feed it to cattle.
Eating local is about so much more than food
The Our World in Data article also suggests that eating local is not a good way to reduce the carbon footprint of your food. This short-sighted view of the local food movement fails to take into account the numerous ancillary benefits that are derived when a community has a thriving local foodshed. Here are a few examples:
More open space for the community to enjoy in the face of endless expansion and urban sprawl.
Preservation of rural communities by supporting residents who produce food products as their primary means of income.
Educating the general public about how food is produced and reconnecting consumers to agriculture at the soil level.
Creating economic security for local farmers.
Supporting a new decentralized supply chain for food production against the rising tide of consolidation in agriculture, trade wars, and transporting food thousands of miles.
Creating community through farmers’ markets, farm-to-table dinners, or other farm-based opportunities for individuals who may have never met otherwise to connect.
Support the case for better meat
By contributing to this project, you can help spread the message that better meat is not only possible, but the best way forward for our food system, health, and the environment. Click here to learn more about Sacred Cow or here to contribute.
Lauren Manning, Esq., LL.M., is a cattle farmer, an agricultural law professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law, food journalist, and contributor to the forthcoming documentary and book project Sacred Cow: The environmental, nutritional, and ethical case for better meat.
