Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The environmental cost of protein food choices

  • Joan Sabaté (a1), Kitti Sranacharoenpong (a1), Helen Harwatt (a1), Michelle Wien (a2) and Samuel Soret (a3)...

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the resource efficiency and environmental impacts of producing one kilogram of edible protein from two plant- and three animal-protein sources.

Design

Primary source data were collected and applied to commodity production statistics to calculate the indices required to compare the environmental impact of producing 1 kg of edible protein from kidney beans, almonds, eggs, chicken and beef. Inputs included land and water for raising animals and growing animal feed, total fuel, and total fertilizer and pesticide for growing the plant commodities and animal feed. Animal waste generated was computed for the animal commodities.

Setting

Desk-based study at the Department of Nutrition and Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, Loma Linda University.

Subjects

None.

Results

To produce 1 kg of protein from kidney beans required approximately eighteen times less land, ten times less water, nine times less fuel, twelve times less fertilizer and ten times less pesticide in comparison to producing 1 kg of protein from beef. Compared with producing 1 kg of protein from chicken and eggs, beef generated five to six times more waste (manure) to produce 1 kg of protein.

Conclusions

The substitution of beef with beans in meal patterns will significantly reduce the environmental footprint worldwide and should also be encouraged to reduce the prevalence of non-communicable chronic diseases. Societies must work together to change the perception that red meat (e.g. beef) is the mainstay of an affluent and healthy diet.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The environmental cost of protein food choices
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The environmental cost of protein food choices
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The environmental cost of protein food choices
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

* Corresponding author: Email jsabate@llu.edu

References

Hide All
1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2010) Water withdrawal by sector. AQUASTAT database. http://www.fao.org/nr/aquastat (accessed December 2013).
2. International Energy Agency (2012) 2012 Key World Energy Statistics. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf (accessed December 2013).
3. US Environmental Protection Agency (2006–2007) Pesticide Market Estimates: Usage. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/07pestsales/usage2007.htm (accessed November 2013).
4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2011) Current world fertilizer trends and outlook to 2015. ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/agp/docs/cwfto15.pdf (accessed November 2013).
5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2003) Compendium of Agricultural–Environmental Indicators 1989–2000. Rome: FAO, Statistics Analysis Service, Statistics Division.
6. United Nations (2004) World Population to 2300. New York: UN; available at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
7. Tanji, KK & Enos, CA (1994) Global water resources and agricultural use. In Management of Water Use in Agriculture, pp. 324 [KK Tanji and B Yaron, editors]. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
8. Horrigan, L, Lawrence, R & Walker, P (2002) How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environ Health Perspect 5, 445456.
9. Kiraly, Z (1996) Sustainable agriculture and the use of pesticides. J Environ Sci Health B B31, 283291.
10. Rockstrom, J, Steffen, W, Noone, K et al. (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 24, 472475.
11. Howden, SM, Soussana, JF, Tubiello, FN et al. (2007) Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104, 1969119696.
12. Garnett, T (2011) Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy 36, Suppl. 1, S23S32.
13. Popp, A, Lotze-Campen, H & Bodirsky, B (2010) Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Global Environ Chang 20, 451462.
14. Foley, JA, Ramankutty, N, Brauman, KA et al. (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337342.
15. Aiking, H (2011) Future protein supply. Trends Food Sci Technol 22, 112120.
16. Marlow, H (2006) The Environmental Impact of Dietary Choice and Agriculture in California. Loma Linda, CA: Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, Loma Linda University.
17. Ernst, R (1995) Poultry Fact Sheet No. 20: Chicken Meat Production in California. Davis, CA: University of California, Avian Sciences Department.
18. Prigge, EC (2011) Rations for Growing Cattle. http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/forglvst/rations.htm (accessed August 2011).
19. US Department of Agriculture (2008) Livestock Slaughter 2007 Summary. Washington, DC: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
20. Teaster, S, Hammett, L, Long, W et al. (2009) Regional Land for Food. A Report of University of Virginia . Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.
21. Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Policy Analysis Knowledge Centre (2007) Guidelines for Estimating Soybean Production Costs. Manitoba: Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Policy Analysis Knowledge Centre.
22. American Public Transportation Association (2006) Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 416M . Washington, DC: APTA.
23. University of California, Davis (2000) Cost and Return Studies. Davis, CA: Agricultural and Resource Economics.
24. Ogejo, J (2009) Selection and Location of Poultry and Livestock Manure Storage. Richmond, VA: Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech.
25. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (2011) USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 24. Nutrient Data Laboratory Home Page. http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/ndl (accessed September 2011).
26. Verheijen, LAHM, Wiersema, D, Hulshoff Pol, LW et al. (1996) Livestock and the Environment – Finding a Balance. Management of Waste from Animal Product Processing. Coordinated by the FAO, USAID and World Bank. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Refer/IACwaste.PDF
27. Carlsson-Kanyama, A & Gonzalez, AD (2009) Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. Am J Clin Nutr 89, issue 5, 1704S1709S.
28. Gonzalez, AD, Frosetll, B & Carlsson-Kanyama, A (2011) Protein efficiency per unit energy and per unit greenhouse gas emissions: potential contribution of diet choices to climate change mitigation. Food Policy 36, 562570.
29. Reijnders, L & Soret, S (2003) Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices. Am J Clin Nutr 78, 3 Suppl, 664S668S.
30. Goodland, R & Anhang, J (2009) Livestock and climate change: what if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs, and chickens. World Watch Inst 22, November/December issue, 1019.
31. Carlsson-Kanyama, A, Ekstrom, MP & Shanahan, H (2003) Food and lifecycle energy inputs: consequences of diet and ways to increase efficiency. Ecol Econ 44, 293307.
32. Baroni, L, Cenci, L, Tettamanti, M et al. (2007) Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems. Eur J Clin Nutr 61, 279286.
33. Marlow, HJ, Hayes, WK, Soret, S et al. (2009) Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter? Am J Clin Nutr 89, issue 5, 1699S1703S.
34. Stehfest, EBL, van Vuuren, DP, den Elzen, MGJ et al. (2009) Climate benefits of changing diet. Climate Change 95, 83102.
35. Aiking, H, Helms, M, Niemeijer, D et al. (2006) The protein chains: pork vs. pea-based NFPs. In Sustainable Protein Production and Consumption: Pigs or Peas?, pp. 2750 [H Aiking, J de Boer and J Vereijken, editors]. Dordrecht: Springer.
36. Eshel, G & Martin, PA (2009) Geophysics and nutritional science: toward a novel, unified paradigm. Am J Clin Nutr 89, issue 5, 1710S1716S.
37. Akhtar, AZ, Greger, M, Ferdowsian, H et al. (2009) Health professionals’ role in animal agriculture, climate change, and human health. Am J Prev Med 36, 182187.
38. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization/United Nations University (1985) Energy and Protein Requirements. Report of Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation. Geneva: WHO.
39. Young, VR & Pellett, PL (1994) Plant proteins in relation to human protein and amino acid nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr 59, 5 Suppl., 1203S1212S.
40. Sabate, J & Ang, Y (2009) Nuts and health outcomes: new epidemiologic evidence. Am J Clin Nutr 89, issue 5, 1643S1648S.
41. Darmadi-Blackberry, I, Wahlqvist, ML, Kouris-Blazos, A et al. (2004) Legumes: the most important dietary predictor of survival in older people of different ethnicities. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 13, 217220.
42. Richman, EL, Stampfer, MJ, Paciorek, A et al. (2010) Intakes of meat, fish, poultry, and eggs and risk of prostate cancer progression. Am J Clin Nutr 91, 712721.
43. Pan, A, Sun, Q, Bernstein, AM et al. (2012) Red meat consumption and mortality: results from 2 prospective cohort studies. Arch Intern Med 172, 555563.
44. Huang, W, Han, Y, Xu, J et al. (2013) Red and processed meat intake and risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Cancer Causes Control 24, 193201.
45. Micha, R, Wallace, SK & Mozaffarian, D (2010) Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 121, 22712283.
46. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009) The State of Food and Agriculture: Livestock in the Balance. Rome: FAO.
47. World Health Organization (2004) Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. Geneva: WHO.
48. Burlingame, B & Durnini, S (editors) (2010) Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity. Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action. Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger, 3–5 November 2010, Rome, FAO Headquarters. Rome: FAO.
49. Weick, C (2001) Agribusiness technology in 2010: directions and challenges. Technical Society 23, 5972.
50. Clark, S, Klonssky, K, Livingston, P et al. (1999) Crop-yield and economic comparisons of organic, low-input and conventional farming systems in California’s Sacramento Valley. Am J Altern Agric 14, 109121.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

The environmental cost of protein food choices

  • Joan Sabaté (a1), Kitti Sranacharoenpong (a1), Helen Harwatt (a1), Michelle Wien (a2) and Samuel Soret (a3)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.