The latest studies on climate change show “with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming” (IPCC 2013) and confirm that “warming in the climate system is unequivocal” (IPCC 2013). This evidence strongly suggests that not only is climate change happening, but it also explains who is directly responsible for disbalancing the climate – humans. What is more important, however, is that there is also enough scientific evidence to point out directly which part of human activity is impacting climate change in the most significant way. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Human influence on the climate change is clear. This [human influence] is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere” (IPCC 2013). Assuming and acknowledging IPCC conclusions on climate change are accurate it is possible to begin to think about future problems, such as food. Even if it is assumed that greenhouse gas emissions produced by humans are responsible for climate change, the question of which human activities are causing those emissions remains open. Among the most scrutinized human activities that add to the climate crisis is the food industry, particularly the production of meat. Experts say that it accounts for 15 to 24% of current greenhouse gas emission. Current trends indicate that meat consumption is likely to increase soon despite these alarming statistics (Fiala 2008).
While protein is one of the three most essential nutrients (along with fats and carbohydrates) in the human diet, it is also the most problematic one because it is the most difficult to produce synthetically. Suggested daily intake of protein per healthy adult, according to McFarlane in “The Goal of Adequate Nutrition: Can It Be More Affordable, Sustainable, and Universal?” is 50 grams (McFarlane 2016). To meet protein requirements, in most cases, people globally either eat beef or soy. These food-related estimations are highlighted as a current and pressing problem because the global population is predicted to grow exponentially in the upcoming years. Future projections of population growth, according to the United Nations (“World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables”), show that by 2030 the world population will reach 8.6 billion, and then it will “increase further to 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100” (UN 2017). The problem, then, is not only that population growth continues to contribute increasingly on a global scale to climate change but also that these predictions directly raise a question of survival; how can humans sustainably feed themselves in a rapidly changing environment?
Comparing two major protein sources, this essay will determine if it is at all possible to assume one protein source as more sustainable for the environment, considering all the elements of the production system. With globalization and the rise of what has become the food industry, a vicious, greenhouse gas emitting cycle has evolved. It is now outdated to merely look at the raising and harvesting of food to yield the true greenhouse gas emission statistics. It is a known fact that the methods of production that drive human food consumption result in the release of greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, many people believe the production of beef emits more greenhouse gasses than the production of soybeans. If one only compares the raising and harvesting of cattle and soy, the statement that beef production yields more GHG emissions is correct. However, due to secondary and tertiary variables such as transportation and the use of these products as ingredients to produce further goods, it is misleading to compare beef to soybeans when determining which food product is most sustainable. To do a comprehensive comparison it is essential to take a step back and look at how the product fits into the larger food industry – all driven by human consumption. When one considers all the variables, the food problem becomes a wicked problem, such as climate change itself, where there is no one right answer. Therefore, humans need to consider alternative solutions to produce scalable and sustainable food to meet the growing demand that is to come. If we will not consider the alternative solutions we become purposefully blind to the future needs and might not meet them.
Although there are many variables to account for when determining long-term dietary sustainability, it is essential to establish first that protein quality, fortunately, is not one of the variables when deciding between beef and soybean protein sources. According to The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which conducted research comparing these two protein sources, “the nutritional quality of isolated soy protein is high and (…) can serve as the sole source of essential amino acids and nitrogen for protein maintenance in adults” (Young 1984). Therefore, fortunately, when approaching the question of environmental sustainability of diet there is no need to account for larger daily intake of either protein source.
Going back to merit, several studies illustrate how much greenhouse gasses (GHG) is emitted by the whole process per consumable unit of protein. The environmental GHG input of beef cattle farming is precisely measured in “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the EU: livestock sector: A life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model:” “On a product level the total GHG intensities of ruminants amount to 19-28kg C02-equiv. per kg of meat (21-28kg for beef (…)) on EU average (…)” (Weiss 2012). This calculation covers gases CH4, N20, and C02 which are also referred to as greenhouse gasses. It was determined that the European Livestock production of beef is responsible for twenty-eight to twenty-nine percent of total greenhouse gas fluxes (Weiss 2012). This evidence straightforwardly proves that the creation of beef cattle has the most significant impact on climate change because it emits the biggest percentage of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
However, the level of greenhouse gas emissions is dependent on the region in which the beef is produced. For example, the previously mentioned study conducted on cattle in Europe has slightly different results from a study conducted on beef in Brazilinteresting variation.. The production of 1kg of hot standard carcass weight (HSCW) in the biggest commercial beef herd in the world according to Milene Dick in “Life Cycle Assessment of Beef Cattle Production in Two Typical Grassland Systems of Southern Brazil” varies between 18.32 and 45.05kg C02 eq/kg respectively to a different type of farming. This study represents two types of farming, which are “intensive production systems (…) [that] characterize the developed countries, and extensive systems, which are found in other countries” (Dick 2015). This evaluation further complicates the problem of comparison by adding yet another layer of variations in GHG emissions. GHG emissions vary depending on multiple factors: not only the region of production, but also, the type of farming.
Following this line of thinking that so many different variables must be taken into account, to give the most comprehensive assessment it is best to take a mean measure from various regions. The whole process of producing the final product of beef protein source, also referred to as C02-eq/mass unit for raw produce, in “Systematic Review of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Different Fresh Food Categories” established that a world average for raw beef produce is 28.73 C02-eq/kg (Clune 2017). Hence, it is possible to assume that per kilogram of a product of beef 28.73 C02 equivalent is thrown into the atmosphere contributing on a global scale to climate change. When looking at the extent to which greenhouse gas emissions are emitted in the food industry, beef production ranks as one of the highest compared to the production of other fresh food sources.
These statistics force humans to search for alternative food sources and soy has been deemed the ultimate solution One of the reasons behind this assumption is the fact that soybean production seems to contribute less to GHG emissions and thus to climate change on a worldwide scale. A study “Greenhouse Gas Assessment of Soybean Production: Implications of Land Use Change and Different Cultivation Systems” was conducted to determine greenhouse gas emissions levels emitted during the lifecycle and production of soybeans. It found that the highest level of greenhouse gasses emitted was 17.8 carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram (Castanheira and Freire 2013). When compared to the 28.73 carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of beef production, soybean emits 10 kilograms less. Therefore, when only comparing the emissions of beef and soybean production, the argument can be made that producing soybeans has less impact on the environment.
However, it is important to remember that the production of soy protein is limited to only a few specific regions that are suitable for its production. Among the world’s leading producers of soybean in 2010/11 were the United Stated of America, Brazil, and Argentina. (Castanheira and Freire 2013). According to Castanheira and Freire “the distances from Brazil and Argentina to the port in Portugal were 8371km and 10244km, respectively.” Therefore, the transportation of soybeans needs to be evaluated as a separate data and added to the total value of GHG emissions, whereas the production of beef can be evaluated as an overall GHG emissions value. Since beef is produced in many regions around the world, the total greenhouse gas emissions for beef is calculated only from its production, unlike soybeans that require an additional factor of transportation.
Evidence shows that there is an additional value that accounts purely for transportation of soybeans to regions unsuitable for its production, but with huge market for its consumption, such as the EU. According to the “Greenhouse Gas Assessment of Soybean Production: Implications of Land Use Change and Different Cultivation System” transportation of soybeans from Argentina and Brazil to the EU ranges from 0.16 C02eq k-1 to 0.29kg C02eq kg-1 (Castanheira and Freire 2013). Hence, it is only rational to add these additional values to the final product of soybean GHG emission values (17.8kg C02eq kg-1) rounding it roughly to 18kg C02eq kg-1. Still, it is much less than the overall GHG emission of beef production per kg of raw produce (28.73 C02-eq/kg). The difference between emissions rates could only justify the argument that humans should switch their diet from meat-based to soybean-based, simultaneously suggesting that this choice would increase the sustainability of the food industry.
Well, it is not that simple. It is not that easy to assume that soybeans are the final solution, because their production has several elements that contribute to climate change beside the basic production of protein. The type of product that is produced from the source soybeans is a variable that has to be taken into account as well when analyzing the overall contribution to climate change. In this manner, it is necessary to remember that there are other lines of products created as soybean other than human proteins. It is difficult to exclude industrial uses of soybeans from edible industry when calculating its precise percentage of GHG. That adds another variable that adds to climate change. According to the study, “Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Brazilian Soybean Biodiesel Production” “emissions for soy oil extraction, which prepared for biodiesel production, ranged from 649 to 709g C02eq. kg-1 (…) [and] finally, calculated GHG emissions for biodiesel production stage ranged from 168 to 510g C02eq.kg-1” (Cerri 2017). These statistics only complicate the matter of comparison further adding another number that has to be accounted for when deciding.
When analyzing further the evidence regarding soybean biodiesel production, there is yet another layer that also has to be considered. Hence the biggest markets for soybean consumption are far from the regions of its production, such as the European Union from South America; also, the transportation costs have to be taken into account. According to experts, “for the scenario of exported B100 [biodiesel] based on PS [Port of Santos] to the port in European Union, GHG emissions have further increased, reaching values that ranges from 775 to 1105g C02 eq.kg-1 B100” (Cerri 2017). In summary, it is not only the number of emissions generated from the production of a product, but also the origin of where production occurred and if transportation is required to move the product from the site of production to another destination that matters.. Hence additional transportation of soybeans gives even more data to take into consideration.
Another angle that should be taken into consideration is that the production of soybeans causes a collateral problem of soil erosion. There is evidence suggesting that soybeans pose a threat to the nutritional value of the soil. Moreover, the economic success of soybean exports from Brazil (the biggest soybean producer) for the Brazilian government is more important than “environmental damages cause by one-crop large-scale farms in the Brazilian savanna” (Ortega 2005). Due to extensive production of soybeans in Brazil based on short-term finance profit, the whole term “sustainable agriculture” retains little meaning.
On the other hand, the production of cattle pastures proves to be beneficial for returning nutritional values to the soil. According to a study led by Dennis O’Brien when “pastures are grazed moderately they’re restoring soil quality and cutting greenhouse gases by keeping carbon in the soil as organic matter rather than releasing it into the atmosphere” (O’Brien 2011). This evidence strongly suggests that the whole process of determining what adds and what decreases greenhouse gas emissions is very complicated. Therefore, determining precisely how much environmental cost comes from the production process of which protein source production (soybeans or cattle) may be difficult to establish as there are many variables to consider.
Another thing worth remembering is the fact that, as soy protein is getting more attention as promising a sustainable solution so does a whole process of deforestation to acquire lands suitable only for soybean production. In other words, as the demand for soy protein rises, there is an increase in deforestation to clear land to produce soy. According to Marcia Macedo in “Decoupling of Deforestation and Soy Production in the Southern Amazon during the late 2000s” “although most of the soy expansion replaced cattle pastures, an average of 12% area in large clearings (>25ha) each year was directly converted from forest to cropland” (Macedo 2012). This evidence suggests that various inputs from soy production may preclude a truly comprehensive comparison between soybeans and cattle. Furthermore, it suggests that, in fact, expansive growth of demand for soy may have a more significant impact on climate change in the future.
When thinking about the future, deforestation of tropical forests to acquire cropland, such as in Brazilian Amazonia, will lead to additional net greenhouse gas emissions. According to the study “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative Futures of Deforestation and Agricultural Management in the Southern Amazon” projections show that deforestation and post-clearing of the land will cause net GHG emission to range from 2.8 to 15.9 Pg C02 from 2006 to 2050 (Gillian 2010). This evidence adds yet another layer that complicates the overall comparison of GHG emission aspect.
Apart from GHG emissions, deforestation can also lead to general outcomes destabilizing the climate. According to experts, among many scary consequences, a few are exceptionally terrifying: “The loss of leaf area and deep roots leads to a reduction in evapo-transpiration and, necessarily, an increase in sensible heat flux. These factors all contribute to surface warming and reductions in precipitation” (Swann 2016). This evidence proves deforestation leads to higher temperature fluctuations and they are a serious threat to the climate. They can lead straight to further dangerous climate destabilization.
Consequently, while soybean production initially seemed like a sustainable long-term solution, its production requires lots of additional resources that add to overall environmental costs; therefore, tangling up the comparison. According to “Greenhouse Gas Assessment of Brazilian Soybean Production: A Case Study of Mato Grosso State,” “soybean production is highly dependent on inputs such as fertilizers, fuels, machinery, and pesticides, contributing to increasing GHG emissions to the atmosphere and the carbon footprint of the final product” (Raucci 2015). In other words, it is hard to determine how much precisely environmental costs gives the production of soybean because there are too many independent variables to consider. As they range from scientifically proven numbers to potential disastrous planet scale consequences that, for obvious reasons, cannot be yet measured precisely, it is not fair to compare beef and soy as equals, in ratio one to one. While, there are some significant advantages of soy production over the beef industry, still there are too many factors in soy industry that have uncertain, but surely negative impact on the planet, to draw a direct comparison.
Considering all the aspects of environmental costs, it is easy to conclude that the whole production of either protein source is equivalently bad for the environment because it is easy to get overwhelmed by all the facts and figures. All the quantities needed to be taken into deliberation are difficult to compare as there is a lot of data not comparable in terms of equality. Figuratively speaking, comparing “apples and oranges” is easy but what if there are also cherries, pears and other fruits that have to be taken into consideration while deciding. This tough comparison can lead to an overwhelming question – what if there is no one, particular long-term sustainable solution to feed the exponentially growing population? What if society is doomed to thrive on a poor diet, excluding from it one of the primary nutrients – protein?
Some argue that the production of beef protein is the most harmful for the environment. Admittedly, the known statistical numbers of greenhouse gas emissions of beef production versus soy, even with accounted transportation, are in favor of soy. As the global information flow grows, the interest in a plant-based diet, based on the available statistical data, also increases. However, adding another layer to this wicked food problem, those who point in the direction of diametrical global nutritional shift often say that even if a plant-based diet is proven to be better, we cannot legislate food. Since it is not possible to forbid or enforce a certain diet, they say, it is only a speculative dispute between theoretical good and evil with no action in particular that can be taken today or tomorrow. This sense of powerlessness leaves humans particularly vulnerable to fear. This fear from being an insignificant individual enforces the human tendency to withdraw from any action at all, which only completes the vicious circle of two-way impasse. People are not taking any action because one individual cannot change the world and on the other hand, policymakers ask why make any changes at all if people will not change. Moreover, this fear triggers a chain reaction of self-asked questions ending with the most crucial one, namely, how exactly one person could change the world, making it easy to sweep all the problems beneath the rug.
These objections and predictions, however, fail to consider the very fact, that one human can indeed change the world. Additionally, the feeling of insignificance is temporary when the public realizes that those actions of potentially small persons are the essence of what truly matters to change today’s world. Consumerism, which drives the demand for different food, is customer-based. The market evolves to meet the customers' needs. Hence, it may not be possible to change the whole system overnight but taking better steps in daily life is something that will eventually change the market, and those steps are indeed achievable. It is the sum of small choices that equals a significant collective impact.
More than this, though, customers have the power not only to fight against the industrialized, vicious, greenhouse gas emitting cycle but also to step outside this circle. However, to step outside of it, a larger point to consider is from where humans source their food and what specifically they consume. According to the facts, the long-term solution to slow climate change is to consume local and organic agriculture, “this [organic agriculture] allows the farmer (…) good use of natural resources, moderate use of economic resources and recycling materials” (Ortega 2005). In order to survive on a sustainable source of food, humans should diversify their diet according to where they live. Consuming food that is produced locally will decrease transportation costs and the impact of transportation on the environment. Additionally, it will decrease deforestation in parts of the world that are meeting the global demand for a particular food not grown locally.
Global overpopulation drives global hyper-consumption. However, the only way to achieve long-term sustainability is through minimizing our needs and resisting the constant urge for consumption. It is well debated in a discussion held by Sergio Ulgiati about a book, The Prosperous Way Down written by H.T. Odum and E.C. Odum. Ulgiati cites the book, which says, “showing a good way down is a call for everyone to think ahead and plan” (Ulgiati 2004). The words “showing a good way down” directly mean to lower social expectations and show a way of living with less. This thinking also involves action to reduce the need for consumption of exotic foods. While the food problem becomes a wicked problem, conversely the solution to it is simplicity. In the multilayered problems, such as the climate change, there is no one right solution and no one right answer, because there is no one problem.
Many different problems layered as though there is a pyramid of complications, unable to break down into one simple solution. However, if we were to simplify it and break it down into smaller manageable portions, then the solution is closer than one would think. True – it is not one “quick-fix” brilliant Hollywood-style solution, but it exists, nonetheless. The way out of this impasse is millions of better choices made by each person. Even though it is not possible to predict the future with a hundred percent certainty, it is possible to acknowledge the risks of today’s world and take one better step in the grocery story for a better future.
References:
Carlos Eduardo Pellegrino Cerri, et al. “Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Brazilian Soybean Biodiesel Production.” PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 5, 2017, p. e0176948.Castanheira, and Freire. “Greenhouse Gas Assessment of Soybean Production: Implications of Land Use Change and Different Cultivation Systems.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 54, no. C, 2013, pp. 49–60.
Clune, et al. “Systematic Review of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Different Fresh Food Categories.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 140, 2017, pp. 766–783.
Dick, et al. “Life Cycle Assessment of Beef Cattle Production in Two Typical Grassland Systems of Southern Brazil.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 96, 2015, pp. 426–434.
Fiala, Nathan. “Meeting the Demand: An Estimation of Potential Future Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Meat Production.” Ecological Economics, vol. 67, no. 3, 2008, pp. 412–419.
Firbank, Lg. “The Beef with Sustainability.” 2018, pp. 5–6. ISSN 2397–334X.
Gillian L. Galford, et al. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative Futures of Deforestation and Agricultural Management in the Southern Amazon.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, no. 46, 2010, pp. 19649–19654.
IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.
Marcia N. Macedo, et al. “Decoupling of Deforestation and Soy Production in the Southern Amazon during the Late 2000s.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109, no. 4, 2012, pp. 1341–6.
McFarlane, Ian, and Christopher J. Smith. “The Goal of Adequate Nutrition: Can It Be Made Affordable, Sustainable, and Universal?” Foods, vol. 5, no. 4, 2016, pp. Foods, 2016, Vol.5(4).
O'Brien, Dennis. “Cattle Pastures May Improve Soil Quality.” Agricultural Research, vol. 59, no. 3, 2011, pp. 6–6.
Ortega, Enrique, et al. “Brazilian Soybean Production: Emergy Analysis with an Expanded Scope.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, vol. 25, no. 4, 2005, pp. 323–334.
Raucci, Guilherme Silva, et al. “Greenhouse Gas Assessment of Brazilian Soybean Production: a Case Study of Mato Grosso State.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 96, 2015, pp. 418–425.
Swann, Abigail L.S., et al. “Future Deforestation in the Amazon and Consequences for South American Climate.’” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, vol. 217, 2016, p. 61.
Ulgiati, Sergio. “H.T. Odum and E.C. Odum, the Prosperous Way Down.” Ecological Modelling, vol. 178, no. 1-2, 2004, pp. 247–250.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2017). World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248.
Weiss, and Leip. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the EU Livestock Sector: A Life Cycle Assessment Carried out with the CAPRI Model.” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 149, 2012, pp. 124–134.
Young, V R, et al. “A Long-Term Metabolic Balance Study in Young Men to Assess the Nutritional Quality of an Isolated Soy Protein and Beef Proteins.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 39, no. 1, 1984, pp. 8–15.