What you eat may effect global warming as much as what you drive

Group's Surprising Beef With Meat Industry
Study ranks production of beef, poultry and pork as second to automobiles in ecological cost

Glen Martin, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 27, 1999

San Francisco -- Environmentally speaking, the worst thing you can do for the planet is drive your sport utility vehicle to the local steak house for a prime sirloin.

That, at least, is the contention of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy group that has just completed a new analysis of the ecological costs of various activities and products.

It perhaps comes as no startling revelation that automobiles are at the top of the organization's list of environmentally damaging products. But what is a surprise is that meat comes in at number two.

The industrial production of beef, poultry and pork pollutes waterways and air, fouls the land and gobbles up valuable resources, said Warren Leon, deputy director of the Massachusetts environmental group.

But other supposedly damaging products -- such as plastic grocery bags or polyester clothing -- are relatively benign, he said.

To compile the list, the Union of Concerned Scientists compared consumer spending patterns with their effect on four broad environmental problems -- global warming, air and water pollution and the alteration of natural habitats.

Leon, who co-authored a book based on the study titled ``The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices,'' said researchers divided ``everything people buy and use'' into 50 categories. ``What we found is that the most harmful activities or products fall into seven of the 50 categories we studied,'' he said.

Leon, who is on a national tour to promote the book, talked about the findings at a meeting of San Francisco's Commonwealth Club last night.

The manufacture and use of cars and light trucks were at the top of the list. ``That was about what we expected,'' Leon said.

After all, cars account for 3.7 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per household each year. And they are responsible for a quarter of all common air pollutants, such as particulates and ozone, and 45 percent of airborne toxins, such as benzene and formaldehyde.

But Leon said researchers were surprised when meat production showed up second only to vehicles in terms of environmental destruction. ``We knew meat production would have some kind of impact, but we didn't expect it to be so significant.''

In terms of water pollution, said Leon, beef is 17 times more damaging than all that goes into making pasta. This is because of water pollution from manure, as well as the amount of electrical energy, fuel, fertilizer and pesticides needed to raise cattle fodder.

``The contamination to the nation's waterways from manure run- off is extremely serious,'' he said. ``Twenty tons of livestock manure are produced for every household in the country. We have strict laws governing the disposal of human waste, but the regulations are lax, or often nonexistent, for animal waste.''

Beef production is also 20 times more damaging to wildlife habitat than pasta production, said Leon, because it uses far more land.

Poultry is somewhat easier on the environment than beef or pork, Leon said. ``Chickens are able to convert feed to meat more efficiently than cattle or hogs, so they ultimately contribute less pollution per pound of meat produced,'' he said.

George Gough, the vice president of government relations for the California Cattlemen's Association, said cattle can have a negative effect on water quality if they are not properly managed, but he said the state's ranchers are committed to sound practices.

He also said not all animal husbandry is the same in its environmental effect. ``Huge commercial hog farms are more likely to have a serious impact than range cattle,'' Gough said.

Vegetables, fruits and grains are third on the group's list because their cultivation usually entails large quantities of pesticides, herbicides, artificial fertilizers and irrigation water.

The other worst offenders are: home heating, air conditioning and water heating; household appliances and lighting; home construction; and household water and sewage.

Some products that have long been assumed to be environmental bugbears -- such as plastic grocery bags -- came away with a relatively clean bill of health.

``Paper or plastic -- it doesn't make any difference,'' Leon said. ``Each accounts for about the same amount of resources expenditure, and the typical household uses only a few pounds a year. Compared to 150 gallons of gas per car or 20 tons of manure per household, that's nothing.''

Nor should consumers fret about choosing between cotton and polyester, fashion considerations aside.

``Both have their downsides,'' Leon said. ``So does wool -- sheep exert an impact on the land, and wool clothes are usually dry-cleaned, which involves toxic chemicals. (But) compared to other categories, clothes aren't that serious of a problem.''

So what is an environmentally minded consumer to do? The environmental damage caused by essential products, such as food, cannot be eliminated, Leon said, but they can be substantially reduced.

``Food will always remain a resource-intensive industry, but we can ease the burden on the environment by buying organic produce and eating less meat,'' he said. ``It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition. You don't have to turn vegetarian -- just cutting back a hamburger or two a week can really help.''

Consumers should also think of the environment when buying a car, Leon said.

``You don't have to get a tiny subcompact,'' he said. ``We found that for any given size and type of vehicle, there is a 20 to 50 percent difference in fuel efficiency, depending on the make. You just have to shop around.''

Some consumer products represent a net gain for the environment, Leon said.

``Microwave ovens consume far less electricity than standard ranges, and new refrigerators are three times more energy efficient than models from 25 years ago,'' he said. ``People should buy them with clear consciences.''

SEVEN MOST HARMFUL CONSUMER ACTIVITIES
By combining rankings of pollution problems
with data on consumer spending patterns, the Union of Concerned
Scientists found that most environmental damage comes from
seven consumer activities.
.
Global warming Air pollution Water pollution Habitat
contributor alteration
(gases) Common Toxic Common Toxic Water Land
.
Driving
cars and
light trucks 27% 22% 46% 6% 13% 1% 13%
.
Meat and
poultry
production 3% 3% 1% 20% 6% 18% 26%
.
Growing fruit,
vegetables
and grains 2% 5% 3% 3% 5% 30% 6%
.
Home heating,
hot water
and air-
conditioning 16% 11% 5% 3% 1% 1% 0%
.
Household
appliances
and lighting 15% 13% 2% 5% 4% 2% 1%
.
Home
construction 3% 4% 2% 6% 6% 1% 23%
.
Household
water and
sewage 0% 0% 1% 11% 0% 5% 0%
.
Percent of
total consumer
contribution
to pollution 66% 58% 60% 54% 35% 58% 69%
.
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists
Chronicle Graphic

A would-be ice cream magnate factually breaks down the extraordinary amounts of waste and the intense harm to our environment caused by modern factory farming. This book has launched thousands of environmentally-conscious vegetarians.

Amongst other accomplishments, John Robbins founded Earth Save -- http://earthsave.org/.