A new study took a deep dive into nearly 99 percent of all land to assess that which factors can affect our food choices and the overall ecological effects of crops, livestock, and seafood.
A new study took a deep dive into nearly 99 percent of all land to assess that which factors can affect our food choices and the overall ecological effects of crops, livestock, and seafood.
Researchers gathered data and information on food production’s effects on the planet, like the disruption of natural habitats, water use and pollution, and contribution to global warming. The research identified the regions and the food production practices that have the largest negative impact on the planet.
Researchers gathered data and information on food production’s effects on the planet, like the disruption of natural habitats, water use and pollution, and contribution to global warming. The research identified the regions and the food production practices that have the largest negative impact on the planet.
Ben Halpern, the study’s lead author says that it is a new way for us to see what we eat and how it is affecting the world.
“We need to be thinking about the multiple ways that food affects the environment,” Halpern, a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, told the Washington Post.
So, you want to reduce your carbon footprint? You might consider improving your diet.
It turns out that healthy eating isn’t just good for your body, it can also lessen your impact on the environment.
Scientists say that food production including growing crops, raising livestock, fishing and transporting all that food to our plates is responsible for 20% to 30% of total global greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, 33% of the ice-free land on our planet is being used to grow our food, researchers say.
But altering our diets could change that.
A new study published Monday in PNAS found that if citizens in 28 high-income nations like the United States, Germany and Japan actually followed the dietary recommendations of their respective governments, greenhouse gases related to the production of the food they eat would fall by 13% to 25%.
At the same time, the amount of land it takes to produce that food could drop by as much as 17%.“At least in high-income countries, a healthier diet leads to a healthier environment,” said Paul Behrens, an environmental scientist at Leiden University in the Netherlands who led the work. “It’s win-win.”
To come to this conclusion, Behrens turned to Exiobase, a massive input-output database that represents the entire world economy. It allowed him to track not only the environmental cost of growing and raising the various types of food we consume, but also the cost of the machinery involved in the production of that food, and the cost of getting it into our supermarkets and eventually onto our plates.
The database also takes into account that some countries are more efficient at producing food than others. For example, growing tomatoes in England takes more energy than growing them in Spain, where it is warmer. Similarly, a steak from a grain-fed cow in England has a smaller environmental footprint than one from a grass-fed cow in Australia.
“The results we’ve presented show how you can use more information about these multiple stressors and the global scale of our food production consequences to influence your individual choice.”
Food from hunters and backyard gardens was not included. Non-food crops like coffee, tea, and tobacco were also not included in the study.
Originally published at OneGreenPlanet.org