Eating Low on the Food Chain Reduces Environmental Impact

In the course of the radio show I recorded yesterday the interviewer asked me, “Craig, what do you think college students can do to lead ‘greener’ lives?”

“Wow,” I responded. “It’s hard to know where to begin. Obviously, we’re all trying to ‘reduce, re-use, and recycle.’ But certainly the way we eat has a great deal to do with our impact on the environment.”

“Is that true? How could that be?” came the response.

A bit stunned that this might be news to people, I explained the basic thermodynamics associated with raising animals for food — how horribly inefficient these processes are.

It takes 78 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of beef protein; 35 calories for 1 calorie of pork; 22 calories for 1 of poultry; but just 1 calorie of fossil fuel for 1 calorie of soybeans. Thus eating plants instead of animals conserves non-renewable sources of energy. Also, 3 to 15 times as much water is consumed in producing animal protein vs. plant protein.

Another issue is the rainforests in tropic regions that are destroyed daily, in part, to create more acreage to raise livestock.

The farther down the food chain you eat, the lower your impact on the environment. Of course, you’re making a sacrifice in the process, as no one disputes that a juicy hamburger tastes really good, so it’s a personal decision. But dig this: not only is eating low on the food chain good for the planet, it’s good for the cow, and it’s good for you. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who laughed out loud when he saw the now-famous slogan: Beef—It’s What’s Rotting in your Colon.

Personally, I’m a moderate. I eat almost no cow and pig and very little poultry, but I go through a heck of a lot of fish.  As a result, my HDL (good cholesterol) is 78; my doctor said he’s never seen one that high. Of course, I might have enough mercury in my system to open my own thermometer manufacturing company.  In any case, again, all this is a personal choice that everyone must make.