They moved the cheese, they being the EWG (Environmental Working Group). In their new study Meat Eaters Guide To Climate Change EWG partnered with Clean Metrics, an environmental analysis firm, to assess the greenhouse gas emissions associated with 20 types of meat, fish, dairy and vegetable proteins, as well as these foods’ effects on health. The group ranked them according to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram - roughly four ounces - of the food. What they found: All meat is not created equal. Lamb, beef, pork and cheese generate the most greenhouse gases. They also tend to be high in fat and have the worst environmental impacts.
The assessments provide the full “cradle-to-grave” carbon footprint of each food item based on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated before and after the food leaves the farm, from the pesticides and fertilizer used to grow animal feed through the grazing, animal raising, processing, transportation, cooking and, finally, disposal of unused food. The analysis includes the emissions from producing food that never gets eaten, either because it’s left on the plate, because of spoilage or because of fat and moisture loss during cooking. The analysis focused on conventionally produced meat (fed non-organic grain and raised or fattened in confined feeding operations), because that’s what Americans mostly eat. It includes the environmental impacts of meat production at each stage of the supply chain.
Beef actually wasn't at the top Lamb edged it out. But only because a lamb produces less edible meat relative to the animal's overall weight. So the emissions are concentrated in those little chops.
Lamb, beef, cheese, pork and farmed salmon generate the most greenhouse gases. With the exception of salmon, they also tend to have the worst environmental impacts, because producing them requires the most resources – mainly chemical fertilizer, feed, fuel, pesticides and water – and pound for pound, they generate more polluting manure. On the health front, the scientific evidence is increasingly clear that eating too much of these greenhouse gas-intensive meats boosts exposure to toxins and increases the risk of a wide variety of serious health problems, including heart disease, certain cancers, obesity and diabetes.
Generally, beef and lamb are the Humvees of food because the animals' digestive functions make a lot of methane, a greenhouse gas with 20 times the potency of carbon dioxide. They also are fed a lot of corn that is often heavily fertilized and spritzed with pesticide, which adds to the emission load. Manure is also a huge problem which is contributing to the pollution of half of the lakes and waterways in the US
EWG does recommend that if you must eat the high impact foods that you at least choose pasture raised and fed animals though they say the carbon footprint for those animals may not be lower than a Confined Animal Feeding Operation.
Does grass-fed beef have a smaller climate footprint than grain-fed beef?
The answer is unclear. There are few definitive studies comparing the net amount of greenhouse gas emissions from grass-fed versus confined-feedlot, grain-fed meat. The climate impact of grass-fed animals depends on factors that vary greatly from one farm to another. Two key factors are: 1) average weight gain and quality of forage (the slower the animals gain weight, the more methane they emit) and 2) rate of soil carbon sequestration.
Since grass-fed, pasture-raised cattle gain weight more slowly than animals fed with a high-starch grain diet, they take longer to reach slaughter weight and consequently emit more methane and nitrous oxide. However, these emissions may be offset by the soil carbon sequestration benefits that well-managed pasture systems can provide. In addition, far fewer energy-intensive inputs are used in producing grass-fed beef. Much more research is needed to determine the comparative climate impact of pasture-based versus feedlot systems.
What EWG had to say about local foods
Does buying local food reduce my carbon footprint?
Transportation is responsible for a small portion of meat and dairy’s carbon footprint; it’s a bigger piece of the climate impact of plant proteins and vegetables. Buying local, therefore, significantly reduces the climate impact of vegetables but has less effect for meat and dairy. According to EWG’s analysis, buying locally can reduce the overall footprint by as much as 20 percent for broccoli and 25 percent for tomatoes; local purchasing reduces meat’s carbon footprint by just 1-to-3 percent.
Benefits of Eating Less Meat from EWG
If you eat one less burger a week for a year, it’s like taking your car off the road for 320 miles or line-drying your clothes half the time.
If your four-person family skips meat and cheese one day a week for a year, it’s like taking your car off the road for five weeks or shortening everyone’s daily shower by three minutes.
If your four–person family skips steak one day a week for a year, it’s like taking your car off the road for almost three months.
Policy Recommendations From EWG
Strengthening regulation of concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFOs) to prevent pollution and unnecessary use of antibiotics and hormones.
Cutting taxpayer subsidies for animal feed and funding programs and support pasture-raised livestock and diversified, organic crop production.
Strengthening conservation requirements on farms that collect subsidies.
Serving less meat and more fresh fruits and vegetable in school lunch programs.
Enacting comprehensive energy and climate policies.