Reduced Meat Consumption and Environmental Impacts

It is often said by environmental groups and by many in the media that eating meat is one of the worst things one can do for the environment. 

Just to give a few examples, NPR ran a series of shows last year about this time about meat.  In one of these shows, it was said  that meat consumption has: 

more of an impact on the environment than any other food we eat.

and Dan Charles, the NPR correspondent wrote meat production:

It's one cause of deforestation, global warming, water pollution, a lot of environmental problems

To give another example, Bryan Walsh, writing for TIME magazine in 2008 said: 

It's true that giving up that average 176 lb. of meat a year is one of the greenest lifestyle changes you can make as an individual.

And, of course, one can find even more polemical arguments that make a similar case, such as Mark Bittman's TED talk.

One of the bases for these claims are the greenhouse gas emissions caused by livestock production.  Estimates widely vary, but one common stat cited from the UN FAO is that livestock are responsible for 18% of all global greenhouse has emissions (note, however, some mistakes in their calculations have come to light suggesting this figure is inflated).  Some environmental groups put the statistic much higher, saying livestock production is "tied to" 51% of global greenhouse emissions (a figure I don't find many credible scientists supporting).  But our own EPA estimates that within the US that ALL of agriculture only contributes 8% of total greenhouse gas emissions from 1990-2011, and only 6.9% in 2011.  Livestock, thus must be something less than this (it was estimated at around 3% by the EPA a few years ago).   

I mention all this because of several news reports I've heard in the past couple days, such as this one from the Washington Post, indicating:

Greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities declined by 4.5 percent from 2011 to 2012 as utilities continued to switch from coal to natural gas to generate electricity and produced slightly less power overall, the Environmental Protection Agency reported Wednesday.

Greenhouse gas emissions from these sources have declined by 10 percent in the two years since the EPA began compiling the data in 2010.

A 4.5% reduction in 1 year and a 10% reduction in two years is a sizable change. According to the EPA data, power plants account for 31% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions emissions.  Thus, a 10% decrease in power plant emissions results in a 3.1% decrease in total US emissions.  

How much would one have to cut livestock production to achieve this same 3.1% decrease in total US emissions resulting from a switch to natural gas (primary brought about, in part, by fracking technology)?  Well, simple math shows that it if you hold the share of greenhouse gas emissions by livestock constant, you'd have to reduce livestock production by more than 100% if you believe the EPA's figure (that 3% of all GHG emissions are from livestock) or 17.2% if you believe the UN FAO's number (that 18% of all GHG emissions are from livestock) to achieve the same outcome that we've actually witnessed in the last two years in part through fracking.   Yes, reducing livestock production might reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it seems much more has been cut by a switch from coal to gas than we can probably ever expect by reducing meat consumption.  

It is also useful to add that technological change in has led to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production.  One study in the Journal of Animal Science by Jude Capper calculates technological change from 1997 to 2007 has reduced methane  emissions by about 23% and carbon emissions by about 20%.  Indeed, the executive summary from the EPA's report on changes in emissions indicates a major reduction in methane emissions has come from changes in livestock production (emphasis added):

CH4 emissions, which have decreased by 8.2 percent since 1990, resulted primarily from natural gas systems, enteric fermentation associated with domestic livestock, and decomposition of wastes in landfills.

Country of Origin Labeling Developments

A recent report from the Congressional Research Service has a nice discussion of the ongoing developments associated with mandatory country of origin labeling for meat: 

Less than one year after the COOL rules took effect, Canada and Mexico challenged them in the World Trade Organization (WTO), arguing that COOL has a trade-distorting impact by reducing the value and number of cattle and hogs shipped to the U.S. market, thus violating WTO trade commitments agreed to by the United States. In November 2011, the WTO dispute settlement (DS) panel found that (1) COOL treats imported livestock less favorably than like U.S. livestock (particularly in the labeling of beef and pork muscle cuts), and (2) COOL does not meet its objective to provide complete information to consumers on the origin of meat products.

This decade-long timeline of events was particularly helpful:

How to Make Beef without Killing the Cow

An interesting video on how to make meat in the lab

The perfect American pig?

My wife forwarded me this story, which is interesting for a number of reasons.  It begins:

From California's Silicon Valley to the cornfields of Iowa, former computer engineer and now pig farmer, Carl Blake is reinventing the way that Americans eat their pork. Through his technology-based approach and good ol’ fashioned farming, he says he has bred the perfect tasting American pig.

There are a couple things to like about this guy's approach.  First, it shows that small-scale niche farming doesn't have to imply a rejection of modern technology.  

The quality of the pork also has to do with what the pigs are fed. Blake uses hydroponic technology, which grows fresh food in water. He is able to pay about $100 for seeds that will grow one-ton of food in six days. Compare that to the price tag of conventional feed prices of $500-$600 per ton. Blake said he doesn’t understand why more farms don’t use the same technology but hopes that it will eventually catch on.  

I'm a little skeptical about the claim that feed from hydroponic technology is substantially cheaper than typical hog feed, once one factors in the cost of labor, capital, etc.  But, more power to him if he can make it work.  And, if it is really increases quality and reduces costs, there's a good chance Tyson, Smithfield, and other large hog producers will be following shortly behind.

There are two things about this story that are worth picking on.  First, is something of a clarification.  Blake is right that meat from the so-called "heritage breeds" of pork are often juicier and tastier (and fatter) than what you'll normally find in the grocery store. As Blake put it:

If you wanted white meat, you buy a chicken. Pork is not meant to be a white meat,

But, we need to ask why the large hog producers make pork this way.  One is that it is probably healthier (at least in terms of fat content) and because, for most people, price trumps quality.  It is easy to decry "chicken-like pork" in the grocery store, but I think it is useful to take a step back and ask why this is the pork we have, and it is a result of a grand competitive process of consumers trying to tell hog producers what they want via their wallets at the store.  We all want cheaper pork.  We all want tastier pork.  That's not controversial.  The interesting thing is to see how that trade-off is manifested in the market, and at least have some respect for the outcome that has emerged.  Now, that's not to say there isn't merit in trying to grow a different kind of pork for someone who particularly values quality or has a few more $ to spend.  

Finally, I was intrigued with the farmer's claim that: 

This is an American pig that I developed in America and I developed it here in Iowa.

I think I know what he's getting at, but a little history is useful too.  Did you know hogs are not native to America?  They came over once Europeans started trekking back and forth in a process referred to as the Columbian exchange.  Here's a neat picture (taken from here) of some of the foods that are "new" to America:

Consumer Attitudes toward Big Food circa 1900

I've been reading an advanced copy of Maureen Ogle's new book, In Meat We Trust: An Unexpected History of Carnivore America .  I'm about half way through, and so far it is fantastic.  

In one section, Ogle writes about Americans' attitudes toward meat packers in the early 1900s:  

Americans insisted on access to cheap food, regardless of its true cost, but believed the worst of those who made that cheap food possible and abundant

Is it any different today?  By the way, when she's referring to "true cost" she doesn't mean externalities - she's talking about the material costs of raising beef and getting it to market, which the average consumer under-estimates.  

She also cited a magazine article written around the same time about by a journalist who actually understood the the effects brought about by the Swift meat packing company:  

“We make great outcry against the concentrated bigness of the packers, yet the probability is that we would make yet greater outcry if the modern system of food supply were suddenly cut off and we were put back on the basis of local butcher-shops.” He was right. in the United States, the mechanisms of food supply were so efficient that they had become taken for granted  —  and when it came to food, Americans took nothing for granted so much as low price. 

They say that the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Here we are a hundred years later, and it remains the case that the mechanisms of food supply are so efficient that they are taken for granted.