Livestock Responsible for 51% of Emissions, Says Worldwatch Institute

by Katherine Gustafson

category: Livestock

Published October 21, 2009 @ 12:13AM PT

A new report called "Livestock and Climate Change" identifies livestock as the source of an astronomical 51 percent of human-created greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me say that again: 51 percent. What happened to that manageable number—18 percent—people usually throw around? And who exactly is making these crazy assertions?

The report appears in the November/December issue of Worldwatch Magazine, a publication of Worldwatch Institute, a reputable environmental think tank based in Washington, DC. Its authors are Robert Goodland, former lead environmental adviser at the World Bank Group, and Jeff Anhang, research officer and environmental specialist at the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation.

They explain that the 18 percent number you always hear was published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), which identified 7,516 million tons of CO2e per year to be attributable to livestock.

FAO came up with this number by adding up the emissions generated by clearing land to graze livestock and grow feed, by raising the livestock and by getting the livestock to the consumer. The study's authors explain that the initial figure undercounts or overlooks 25,048 million tons of CO2e associated with livestock.

According to the report's authors, the original FAO number did not account for important realities of modern meat production such as cows' breathing, the clearcutting of Amazon rainforest for grazing or the entirety of the marine products industry (apparently, up to half of marine organisms caught go to livestock; who knew?).

The authors' analysis reveals that livestock are actually responsible for 32,564 million tons of CO2e, which amounts to 51 percent of total emissions attributable to human activity.

Can it be true? The authors seems to be meticulous, even noting that preparing meat requires longer, hotter cooking, which, in the developing world at least, means burning more charcoal, which puts extra pressure on forests.

But it's still hard to swallow that such a vast amount of greenhouse gases might originate in this one industry. It's even harder to believe their solution is going to take off; they advocate entirely replacing the meat and dairy industries with plant-based substitutes such as soy milk and seitan burgers.

Will Tofurky save us all?

Photo courtesy of Royalty-free image collection on flickr

Locavorism Isn't Inherently Elitist, But Many Are Excluded

by Mike Smith

category: local food

Published October 20, 2009 @ 09:40AM PT

Locavores are frequently accused of harboring an elitist mentality about food, with local food most recently accused of being "anything but liberatory for those traditionally marginalized." And that's not the worst of it as James McWilliams explains in a guest-post on the Freakonomics blog. He contends that "Localization ... specifies what is and is not acceptable within an arbitrary boundary. In this sense, it delimits diversity." So are those in favor of local food in fact alienating themselves from their community by creating a level of exclusivity not attainable by so many?

To the extent that local food is currently not widely available as it could be: yes. But as the blog explains, this can change. And the sustainable food movement is young! The solution, of course, is not to stop producing local or supporting local food. The solution is to consider who's being excluded by our tight embrace of sustainable food.

Samuel Fromartz doesn't have so much time for McWilliams, arguing back with statistics: "the median income of an organic shopper was right around the national median," further explaining that the problem may be that local food markets simply aren't sufficiently available. Both Fromartz and McWilliams offer compelling arguments that it's worth considering, rather than stumbling into supermarkets or farmers markets' and blindly assuming either is best. We must consider who's being left out, and how we can do better to give good food to more people, not just to ourselves.

Photo credit: Wholtone

Connecticut AG Takes on Smart Choices Labeling Scheme

by Katherine Gustafson

Published October 20, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT

Readers of this blog will know by now that the "Smart Choices" campaign supposedly meant to identify better-for-you foods has made the idiotic decision to label sugary cereals like Froot Loops and Lucky Charms good eating decisions. The logic goes like this: at least a bowl of Froot Loops is better than a Cinnabon!

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, bless his heart, is not so sure this is a good idea. The New York Times reports that last week he announced plans to investigate the matter. Imagine, a public official actually looking out for the public's best interest!

His Website is refreshingly confidence-inspiring: "As the public's lawyer," the caption beside a photo of the smiling Blumenthal reads, "I am here to . . . protect consumers."

He's trying to recruit other states' AGs to his cause and has apparently gotten some interest. States have teamed up in the past on deceptive-marketing cases, such as those concerning the cigarette and subprime lending industries.

Blumenthal has already written letters to General Mill's, Kellogg's and PepsiCo, food-industry heavy-hitters (heavy-biters?) that are participating in the program, expressing his concern that the labeling scheme is “overly simplistic, inaccurate and ultimately misleading.”

His investigation will aim to determine if the Smart Choices labeling campaign runs afoul of Connecticut's consumer protection law barring misleading or false product claims. Assertions that products such as Froot Loops are wise eating choices "seem very questionable," he told the Times. “We’re ratcheting up pressure for truthful answers to these issues.”

Think your AG should join in Mr. Blumenthal's effort? Click here to find out how to contact yours. And don't forget to sign our petition asking scientists to stop participating in this industry-funded farce.

Photo courtesy of Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com, via flickr

World Food Prize Highlights Development and Security

by Katherine Gustafson

Published October 19, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT

Gebisa Ejeta started off as a boy living in a mud hut in rural Ethiopia and walking 25 miles each week to attend school in town. Back then it might have seemed improbable that fifty years later he would win a $250,000 international prize for groundbreaking advances in biology.

But this brilliant academic star ascended through the ranks of his country’s school system and then set off to the U.S. to earn his PhD in plant breeding and genetics at Purdue University. He now holds a distinguished professorship there and is widely regarded as a global leader in the development of drought-resistant crops that help the world’s farmers make ends meet.

Last Thursday he was awarded the World Food Prize for his development of sorghum hybrids that are able to grow in arid areas and fend off the debilitating Striga weed. These innovations, according to the prize Website, have “dramatically increased the production and availability of one of the world’s five principal grains and enhanced the food supply of hundreds of millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa.”

Dr. Ejeta is also honored for working tirelessly to push economic development and empower small-holder farmers via agricultural advancements across rural Africa. His work has helped small farmers produce more crops, improve nutritional and gain more income from agricultural activities, and boost the profitability, changes that have brought fundamental changes to millions of African lives and livelihoods.

The prize, created by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Norman Borlaug in 1986 and sponsored by businessman/philanthropist John Ruan since 1990, highlights how vital a nutritious and sustainable food supply is for everyone on Earth.

The award was given at a ceremony during the 2009 “Borlaug Dialogue“ on the topic of “Food, Agriculture, and National Security in a Globalized World,” which took place in Des Moines, Iowa, October 14 to 16. The dialogue and this year’s choice of Laureate both emphasize that food and nutrition are increasingly understood by the international community as playing key roles in national and international security challenges and in the dynamics of economic, political and environmental shifts.

There is hardly anything, after all, more important to the human species than food. Water, perhaps, but that’s pretty much it. The need for food and water is, like the desire for money and power, a fundamental driver of global events. We should all take a hint from Dr. Ejeta and ask ourselves how food's development, production and distribution fit into the bigger picture of our specie’s life on Earth.

Photo courtesy of Jonathan Talbot of the World Resources Institute Staff, via flickr

Sustainable Food Will Benefit From Fewer Americans Relocating

by Mike Smith

Published October 18, 2009 @ 03:49PM PT

With fewer Americans relocating than anytime in the last 50 years, communities, families and the environment stands to gain. Settling in one place for a longer time is helping build more resilient communities, with alternative industries thriving. The report explains that Wal Mart won't be replaced by more grocery stories anytime soon, but I have to say that this is really good news for the sustainable food movement.

More people spending more time in their communities are more likely to invest more into it. If you're constantly moving you aren't so likely to get involved in things like food co-ops. You'd be less likely to know about vegetable box scheme, unlikely to know your farmer, and wouldn't be so clued in to where all the good farmers' markets are.

Putting down roots can be a literal thing too. Once you've got to know an area, and lived there for a while, and with plans to live there for a long time too, beginning backyard farming or getting to know where the farmers' markets are make a great investment of time and money. And if a number of people do this, the effect multiplies to help grow the local food scene. If this can at the same time help defeat homogenization and build communities, then we're all winners. But I fear this may be the recession pinning us back, rather than a conscious decision being made.

Photo credit: Paul Beattie

Furious Farmers Set Paris Tire Fire

by Katherine Gustafson

Published October 16, 2009 @ 03:21PM PT

I wrote recently about how high food prices cause people around the globe to go fairly berserk. Exhibit A for today (incidentally, World Food Day): French farmers burning tires and hay on the Champs Elysees in response to a surge in grain prices, as reported by the Associated Press (check out the excellent set of photos accompanying the article).

Around 150 farmers blockaded traffic and littered the famous shopping street in the shadow of the Arc de Triomphe with flaming detritus. Firefighters quickly put out the blaze, but not before the protesters got their message across: please help!

They want the French government to assist them in managing the increasing instability and debt they have been facing as food prices have slid from record highs in 2007.

Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire said he would request that President Nicolas Sarkozy relieve the rabblerousers by reducing their taxes this year. But even so, he said that the difficulties would be far from over; agricultural revenue is slated to drop up to 20 percent this year, the same as last year.

The farmers say things are even worse than that, though, a point they made with signs showing a drowning person above the caption: "Sarkozy: Agriculture, should it pay such a price?"

In the U.S., where government bailouts seem to be more the province of closed-door deals than tire-burning street shenanigans, we might well ask why these farmers think they should get a handout. They’re not “too big to fail” are they? But in this era when fewer of the people grow more of the food, are they just too important to be ignored? U.S. farmers get handouts, after all, though unfortunately only the big ones.

What do you think — should French farmers get a helping hand? It is time that American small farmers start burning hay bales and Goodyears on the National Mall?

Photo courtesy of Dominic's pics on flickr

University Cancels Pollan Talk To Placate Agribusiness Investors

by Mike Smith

Published October 16, 2009 @ 10:19AM PT

Michael Pollan is frightening agribusiness everywhere. They're so worried about his EVIL influence ("Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants") that they pressured a California school to demand a speech by Pollan be cancelled. "I find it unacceptable that the university would provide Michael Pollan an unchallenged forum to promote his stand against conventional agricultural practices,'' wrote David E. Wood, chairman of the Harris Ranch Beef Co., in a letter to the Cal Poly president. The threat was that donations that agribusiness makes to the school would be withdrawn were Pollan allowed to talk.

Pollan won't be permitted to slaughter the sacred cow of big ag on this occasion — though it's hard to understand what one talk would do apart from allow various people to express their opinions and debate the facts. The LA Times played devil's advocate in an op piece: "The more sustainable methods preached by Pollan and other anti-agribusiness scholars might improve our health, but they might also raise the cost of food," and outlining other various objections. But they come to the same conclusion any rational person would: "The university's attempt to dilute [Pollan's] message in order to placate a donor is a shameful breach of academic freedom."

Photo credit: ragesoss