Eating environmentally

[Falvlun]

Environmentally, is it worse to eat fresh fruits and veggies year round or to dine primarily on meat and grains?

EDIT:
The BF and I got into this argument the other day while grocery shopping. I like to eat fresh fruits and veggies. The BF hates to buy them because, according to him, they are one of the worst things you can buy, environmentally.

His argument? We should not be eating vegetables that are a) out of season and b) trucked in from far away. In other words, we should not be eating tomatos from California, in November, when we live in the U.P.

I understand his concerns: a lot of energy is used to to expedite the transport of fresh fruits a long way aways. A lot of energy is also expended to grow vegetables out of season, in greenhouses and such. And the other thing: fruits and veggies need lots of water, and if grown in places like California, this water is not readily accessible and is being diverted from its natural, and fastly depleting, source.

I countered that his preferred foods-- lots of meat, breads, and some canned/frozen veggies-- weren't much better, and in some ways worse. He rejected the idea that grains were bad, as they are primarily grown in the Midwest, can be stored, and don't need irrigation. He felt that canned/frozen veggies were much more environmentally sound than fresh, despite the packaging and processing costs. And as the discussion got rather heated at this point, we failed to discuss meat.

So, what is the most environmentally sound way to eat? Are fresh fruits and veggies truly the sinister snake among us? Should I forgo my orange in January, and eat crackers instead?

 

[Madhuri]

Considering how much grain is used to feed farmed animals, and all the deforestation that occurs for the purposes of keeping farmed animals, it is generally considered FAR more environmentally friendly to be vegetarian.

In fact, environmental reasoning is one of the biggest arguments used by vegetarians these days.

 

[bobhikes]

Chicken and the Environment :: ACMF

Australia's answer to global warming charts and all.

 

[Madhuri]

Poor chickens, they get treated the worse.

 

[Falvlun]

Thanks for the comments so far. That's how I've always thought: the less meat we eat, the better! And what could be better than replacing it with fresh fruits and vegetables?

I have realized, though, in my attempt to make the OP clear and concise, I failed at half of that equation. Please see the EDIT in the OP to see what is really at stake here.

 

[Falvlun]

I guess what it boils down to is this:

Are we justified in eating fresh fruits and vegetables when they are out of season or are transported thousands of miles?

Can the vegetarian truly claim the high environmental moral ground when their diet largely consists of fresh fruits and vegetables throughout the year?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess what it boils down to is this:

Are we justified in eating fresh fruits and vegetables when they are out of season or are transported thousands of miles?

Can the vegetarian truly claim the high environmental moral ground when their diet largely consists of fresh fruits and vegetables throughout the year?

You've got a good point.

Looking at my hundred-mile diet radius, I'd have plenty of carrots, potatoes, corn, dairy products, meat, apples and wine. I'd be pretty short on vegan-approved protein.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think the question here is less about which kind of food is better but which production methods are.

I have seen something (unfortunately I can't remember where) suggesting that there can be a greater environmental impact from eating vegetables produced locally but in a high intensity manner compared to those imported long distances but grown in a lower-tech environment. All the heating and irrigation of the massive UK greenhouses outweigh the ships and trucks from abroad.

I guess it's possible that in a similar way that meat from animals on a small, self-sufficient farm might be less environmentally damaging than intensively farmed and far-imported meat alternatives.

All this makes it very difficult for us to shop environmentally - we don't (and probably can't) have enough information to make an informed choice. It's probably an issue that could only be impacted at a wider scale - producers, sellers and governments rather than individual consumers.

That doesn't stop me feeling smug when I select UK-grown tomatoes over those from half-way around the world though.

 

[painted wolf]

Sounds like you should try being a locavore.

That is someone who limits their food consumption to primarily things that are within a certain radius from where they live. Say, 50, 100 or at most 200 miles depending on where you live and what is available.

Locavores - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How environmental your food is depends not only on where it comes from but how it's produced. Local factory farmed food is still not a good choice despite being local.

Just to clerify, I'm neither a vegitarian nor an organics only proponent. I'm not even a strict locavore. (there are some things I like that must be shipped.)

But for those things, like coffee and chocolate, that i must get from far away, I try to find the most sustainable option possible. Such as shade grown/free trade coffee.

wa:do

Generally, you eat what is in season or what is locally canned/preserved.

 

[Penumbra]

Dunno.

It's obvious that local produce is more environmentally friendly than long-distance produce, but I'm not sure whether long-distance produce or local meat is more harmful. I'd wager it's the meat, since there's just so many steps that go into it and it still has hefty transportation costs, but who knows.

Environmental issues are only one component of why I don't eat meat, so even if it were the case that eating local meat is a bit better than my current diet for the environment, I still would never do it.

I do eat a lot of grains, but fruits and veggies are fairly important for health.

 

[Reptillian]

Eat more insect meat everyone. High in protein, low in fat, good for the environment.

 

[Penumbra]

Eat more insect meat everyone. High in protein, low in fat, good for the environment.

No thanks.

 

[painted wolf]

Dunno.

It's obvious that local produce is more environmentally friendly than long-distance produce, but I'm not sure whether long-distance produce or local meat is more harmful. I'd wager it's the meat, since there's just so many steps that go into it and it still has hefty transportation costs, but who knows.

Environmental issues are only one component of why I don't eat meat, so even if it were the case that eating local meat is a bit better than my current diet for the environment, I still would never do it.

I do eat a lot of grains, but fruits and veggies are fairly important for health.

It would depend on how the local produce is produced.... if there are a lot of chemicals used in an industrially intensive way, than the short shipment distance may still not be enough.
Low impact production combined with efficient shipment (rail vs. truck) can often be more environmentally responsible.

For example, it's more environmentally responsible for someone on the East Coast of the USA to drink European wine than Californian... mostly due to the manner it's shipped. (boats are much more efficient per pound than trucks)

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

There's no easy answer to such a question, and no one "environmental" dietary solution. Reducing your dietary footprint is an ongoing process that involves weighing the reduced impact of organic, local, free range, whole food against your budget, commitment and tastes. Fresh produce is better than meat, but if meat must be had chicken is better than beef. A chicken out of your own back yard is better than a crate of avocados shipped up from Guatemala, but if you are planning to either eat your own home-grown chicken or your own home-grown / home-made potato leek soup, you're better off hanging onto the chicken (for the eggs, of course, and because they de-slug your veggie garden).

When I shop, I take into account a few general rules (very little meat, always fish or chicken), then I set about reading labels and making the tough choices. Organic carrots from California or non-organic local carrots, for example? Tinned soup with only whole, natural ingredients, or soup filled with unrecognizable chemicals and preservatives for half the price? This involves being aware of the worst produce as far as pesticide contamination is concerned. If the non-organic avocados are cheaper I'll buy them, but not the potatos.

After many years of this, I've developed preferences and recognize brands that represent the best choice for minimal environmental impact and maximum healthiness (often the same thing), so it's not that big of a hassle any more.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Eat more insect meat everyone. High in protein, low in fat, good for the environment.

I hear prepared locusts are quite palatable and a number of ants actually have a taste similar to citrus. I draw the line at cockroaches and grubs. Not sure I actually would be brave enough to try, but you never know. I might eat a bug! :drool:

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Considering how much grain is used to feed farmed animals, and all the deforestation that occurs for the purposes of keeping farmed animals, it is generally considered FAR more environmentally friendly to be vegetarian.

In fact, environmental reasoning is one of the biggest arguments used by vegetarians these days.

Us Hindus are finally starting to make sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

My advice:
Eat fresh healthy food you can afford....& bacon...& chocolate.

The number of miles a veggie travels is not a very significant measure of dollar cost, energy cost, or carbon footprint.
A tomato grown in Mexico & shipped to Michigan by rail results in very little fuel used. Ocean going transport is even better.

Food miles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd be more concerned with the kind of food consumed. Some critters (pigs) are more
efficient converters than others (cows). Avoid excessive packaging. Avoid waste. Eat out less.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I won't compromise on my food for the environment.

The environment can stuff itself.

 

[painted wolf]

I won't compromise on my food for the environment.

The environment can stuff itself.

Which is why the over use of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and so on is such a health problem in so many places.

The Hindu : Kerala News : Film highlights pesticide overuse in Wayanad
11.15.95 - Pesticide Overuse a Threat to California Agriculture
Pesticide Overuse Takes Serious Turn in Bangladesh
Factors contributing to overuse of pesticides in western China - Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences
Dead zone (ecology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

unfortunately, simply being vegetarian won't fix these problems.

wa:do

 

[Requia]

Considering how much grain is used to feed farmed animals, and all the deforestation that occurs for the purposes of keeping farmed animals, it is generally considered FAR more environmentally friendly to be vegetarian.

Less grain and land is used than the vegetarians make out. It might be different in other parts of the country, but around here cattle eat grass, hay, alfalfa, stuff like that. I've heard of them getting soy but never known a farm that does it (and the practice is likely to dry up now that its know roundup ready soy causes sterility in cattle). It's 'grain fed' because they get grain the last two weeks before getting the axe. A lot of the grain they eat is cast off from other industries as well (barley that was used for making beer for example). Deforesting to keep animals almost never happens in the US either (though it is a major problem in other parts of the world).

As for the eating local thing, either go to a farmer's market or don't bother. Even if the food is grown locally, its likely shipped halfway across the country to be processed first (and everything requires some level of processing, even if its just loading it into crates for the grocery stores).