Local meat, is it really better for the environment?
Eating meat has a significant negative effect on the environment, but you don't have to become vegan or vegetarian to reduce your impact. For instance, choosing your meat better can already make a big difference[1]. We hear that one way to be eco-friendly is to eat locally, to reduce the number of resources required to deliver food to our table. So yes in general, eating locally is better for the environment but does this hold true for meat consumption?
Where does my meat really come from?
Even though the origin of the meat could be a criterion to choose your meat, the process lacks traceability. There are difficulties in tracking animals and their parts, the meat supply chain in the US clearly has weaknesses. For instance traceability requirements for composite products, such as ground beef, are generally less stringent and are often limited to the date and place of manufacture.[2]
How important is transport in decision-making?
While eating locally can reduce your impact on the environment, this reduction is not as great as some might think and other factors are more important[3].
A report by the International Institute for Environment and Development entitled "Fair Miles - Recharting the Food Miles Map" has shown that the way food is produced is more important than the distance it covers to be transported. The amount of energy, fertilizer and other resources used on the farm can be of greater environmental importance than the transport of the final product. As complex as all this may seem, one thing is clear about the food system: food transport is a relatively small part of the emissions equation[4]. Transportation as a whole accounts for only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions[5]. Thus, we suggest that dietary changes can be a more effective way to reduce the climate footprint of an average household’s diet than “buying local.” There are many other aspects of the agricultural process and food supply chain that also contribute to the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the foods you eat[6].
While buying locally produced meat reduces the amount of fuel needed to transport your food, it does not change the fact that animal agriculture requires an inordinate amount of resources and produces a lot of waste and pollution.
Tara Garnett, research fellow at the Food Climate Research Network, stated that:
“There is only one way of being sure that you cut down on your carbon emissions when buying food: stop eating meat, milk, butter and cheese... These come from ruminants—sheep and cattle—that produce a great deal of harmful methane. In other words, it is not the source of the food that matters but the kind of food you eat.”
What criteria should be taken into account?
What kind of meat am I eating?
Since transport is not a major criterion, what criteria should be taken into account when choosing your meat? First of all, choosing the right meat is crucial. Indeed when eating meat, the choice of meat type can make a huge difference[8]. Not all meats have the same environmental footprint and some are more resource-intensive than others (see our previous blog post, Change your diet, change the world). Lamb, beef and even cheese have the highest emissions. This is partly due to the fact that they come from ruminant animals that constantly produce methane through their digestive process, called enteric fermentation.
Instead of beef or lamb, opt for chicken and pork, which contribute less to greenhouse gas emissions. There's no solid evidence that free range or organic meat is better for the planet. However, from a social point of view, your consumption choices can help to support small scale farmers respectful of animal welfare requirements and support local businesses benefiting your community.
⮞ To sum up, the magnitude of emissions from other life cycle and production stages can offset the environmental impacts of transport. The impact of transport also varies by product type. For meat and dairy products, the agricultural stage contributes significantly to the greenhouse gas emissions associated with these foods and the impact of transport is less important. However, bear in mind that for field fruits and vegetables, the agricultural stages are less significant in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of transport can be more consequential.
[1] Johnson, L. (17 October 2019). Ethical and Sustainable Guide to Eating Meat. Available at https://www.freshnlean.com/blog/ethical-guide-eating-meat/.
[2] Shackell, Grant. (2008). Traceability in the meat industry - The farm to plate continuum. International Journal of Food Science & Technology. 43. 2134 - 2142. 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2008.01812.x.
[3] Lin, D. (27 July 2021). The Environment and Free-Range, Organic, and Local Meat. Available at https://www.treehugger.com/environment-free-range-organic-local-meat-127667.
[4] Chi, K.R, MacGregor, J. & King, R. (2009). Fair Miles - Recharting the Food Miles Map. International Institute for Environment and Development & Oxfam GB. Available at: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/115389/bk-fair-food-miles-101209-en.pdf?sequence=1.
[5] Pirog, Rich S., Van Pelt, T., Enshayan, K., & Cook, E. (2001). Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions. Leopold Center Pubs and Papers. 3. Available at http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/leopold_pubspapers/.
[6] Chi, K.R, MacGregor, J. & King, R. (2009). Fair Miles - Recharting the Food Miles Map. International Institute for Environment and Development & Oxfam GB. p.14.
[7] Garnett, T. (12 November 2007). Climate-friendly eating. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2007/nov/12/climatefriendlyeating.
[8] Dagorn, G. (29 October 2015). Avant d’être cancérigène, la viande est polluante pour la planète. Available at https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2015/10/29/la-viande-a-aussi-un-impact-majeur-sur-la-planete_4799570_4355770.html.