Earth Day 2012: The Most Harmful Foods For The Environment

The Huffington Post Canada  |  By Posted: 04/05/2012 5:11 pm Updated: 04/25/2012 2:35 pm

With Earth Day on the horizon and April's designation as Earth Month, the next few weeks marks the time when people are thinking about their own roles in helping the environment. The good news is there are options that don't involve chaining yourself to a sequoia; it can be as simple as taking a look at what's on your plate.

When people think of "green" foods, their first inclination may be to reach for that head of broccoli in their vegetable crisper, and they wouldn't be wrong in doing so. That's because vegetables outrank their meat counterparts in terms of their environmental impact.

Food's environmental impact lies in measuring in its carbon footprint -- the amount of greenhouse gases involved in the process, from growing the food to how it ends up on your plate. And while the easiest culprit to spot is the exhaust coming from cars and trucks, there are plenty of other polluting perpetrators, like the energy it takes to process and manufacture the food.

Below is a list of the top 10 food offenders in terms of the carbon footprint they leave behind. Story continues below:

Loading Slideshow...
  • Number 10: Potatoes

    At 2.9 kg of greenhouse gases produced for ever kg eaten, potatoes are the most environmentally unfriendly vegetable out there. The bulk of its gases aren't in the production, though -- it's what happens to potatoes after they leave the farm (cooking, processing, travelling and waste disposal) that rack up emissions. -<a href="http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/" target="_hplink">statistics via Environmental Working Group</a>

  • Number 9: Eggs

    For every kilogram of eggs consumed, 4.8 kg of greenhouse gases are produced. If that doesn't seem too bad, try factoring in the notion that Canada alone produces about 6 billion eggs a year. -<a href="http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/" target="_hplink">statistics via Environmental Working Group</a>

  • Number 8: Canned Tuna

    With 6.1 kg of greenhouse gases produced for every kg of canned tuna, this item makes the list because two-thirds of its carbon footprint comes from product emissions. This means that the bulk of the gases created by canned tuna come from raising the fish and not the actual canning process. -<a href="http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/" target="_hplink">statistics via Environmental Working Group</a>

  • Number 7: Chicken

    From McNuggets to a cordon bleu, chicken in all of its parts make up roughly one-third of the world's meat intake. Coupled with 6.9 kg of greenhouse gases for every kg of chicken consumed, and this bird's impact on the environment starts adding up. -<a href="http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/" target="_hplink">statistics via Environmental Working Group</a>

  • Number 6: Turkey

    Sure it's great for holiday meals, but it might be harder to give thanks this Thanksgiving after learning that one kilogram of turkey contributes to 10.9 kg of greenhouse gases. -<a href="http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/" target="_hplink">statistics via Environmental Working Group</a>

  • Number 5: Farmed Salmon

    Fans of seafood are in a tough position. Eating wild salmon is frowned upon due to overfishing, but farmed salmon, which is designed to help wild salmon repopulate, comes with a carbon footprint of 11.9kg /kg of salmon. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/havbrukssenter/" target="_hplink">(Photo courtesy of Norsk Havbrukssenter)</a> -<a href="http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/" target="_hplink">statistics via Environmental Working Group</a>

  • Number 4: Pork

    It's the <a href="http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/meat/backgr_sources.html" target="_hplink">most popular type of meat consumed by the world</a>, according to the United Nations. But with 36 per cent of the world's population pigging out on pork, its impact on the environment is tough to dismiss -- especially when you factor in pork's carbon footprint of 12.1 kg of gas/ kilogram. -<a href="http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/" target="_hplink">statistics via Environmental Working Group</a>

  • Number 3: Cheese

    It may surprise you that the third highest producer of greenhouse gases isn't an animal or vegetable, it's cheese. But remember, cheese is something made, not grown or raised and because of that, cheese's carbon footprint works out to 13.5 kg/ kg consumed. -<a href="http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/" target="_hplink">statistics via Environmental Working Group</a>

  • Number 2: Beef

    With 27 kg of carbon dioxide and methane produced for every kilogram eaten, beef would be the runner up if there ever was a largest carbon footprint pageant. Its poor environmental friendliness is due mostly to the large amount of energy it takes to feed, milk and butcher cattle. -<a href="http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/" target="_hplink">statistics via Environmental Working Group</a>

  • Number 1: Lamb

    Lambs are cute. The 39.2 kg of greenhouse gases it takes to eat one kilogram? Not as cute. On the bright side, since lamb isn't consumed in as high volumes as pork, beef or poultry, the overall contribution to global warming is lessened. -<a href="http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/" target="_hplink">statistics via Environmental Working Group</a>

TEXT VERSION OF SLIDESHOW HERE

In the past, environmentalists have cited "food miles" as the unit by which to measure a food's impact on the environment. Their argument was the further a piece of food travelled, the more its harm to the environment. But the concept has come under scrutiny, with others nothing it's how the food is made, not how far it travels that contributes to its carbon footprint.

"The concept of food miles is unhelpful and stupid. It doesn't inform about anything except the distance travelled," said Dr Adrian Williams, of the National Resources Management Centre at Cranfield University in an interview with The Observer.

The story is very much the same in Canada, according to the David Suzuki Foundation, with an average of 11 per cent of a food's carbon footprint coming from travel and 83 per cent of the food coming from how the food is grown.

Another offender of greenhouse gases, according to the Foundation, lies in people's palate for meat. Roughly one-fifth of the total greenhouse gases produced comes from livestock production, which isn't surprising, considering 70 per cent of all agricultural land use is devoted to livestock production and makes up for 30 per cent of the land surface of the planet.

SLIDESHOW TEXT VERSION:

  • 10. Potatoes: At 2.9 kg of greenhouse gases produced for ever kg eaten, potatoes are the most environmentally unfriendly vegetable out there.
  • 9. Eggs: For every kilogram of eggs consumed, 4.8 kg of greenhouse gases are produced.
  • 8. Canned Tuna: With 6.1 kg of greenhouse gases produced for every kg of canned tuna, this item makes the list because two-thirds of its carbon footprint comes from product emissions.
  • 7. Chicken: From McNuggets to a cordon bleu, chicken in all of its parts make up roughly one-third of the world's meat intake.
  • 6. Turkey: Sure it's great for holiday meals, but it might be harder to give thanks this Thanksgiving after learning that one kilogram of turkey contributes to 10.9 kg of greenhouse gases.
  • 5. Farmed Salmon: Fans of seafood are in a tough position. Eating wild salmon is frowned upon due to overfishing, but farmed salmon, which is designed to help wild salmon repopulate, comes with a carbon footprint of 11.9kg /kg of salmon.
  • 4. Pork: It's the most popular type of meat consumed by the world, according to the United Nations.
  • 3. Cheese: It may surprise you that the third highest producer of greenhouse gases isn't an animal or vegetable, it's cheese.
  • 2. Beef: With 27 kg of carbon dioxide and methane produced for every kilogram eaten, beef would be the runner up if there ever was a largest carbon footprint pageant.
  • 1. Lamb: Lambs are cute. The 39.2 kg of greenhouse gases it takes to eat one kilogram? Not as cute.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Please note, the sourcing information for the statistics in the slideshow above has been updated. It previously referenced The 9 Billion, a site quoting the primary source, the Environmental Working Group.
FOLLOW CANADA LIVING

With Earth Day on the horizon and April's designation as Earth Month, the next few weeks marks the time when people are thinking about their own roles in helping the environment. The good news is ther...
With Earth Day on the horizon and April's designation as Earth Month, the next few weeks marks the time when people are thinking about their own roles in helping the environment. The good news is ther...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 88
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
11:23 PM on 06/21/2012
The Impacts - 2011 Meat Eaters Guide | Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change + Health | Environmental http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kloche
living the fast life, here on my couch
10:23 AM on 04/10/2012
I am not a vegan. But it shocks me that people are willing to eat lamb or veal. Baby animals!
photo
FaunaAndFlora
Daughter of Pan
10:16 PM on 04/10/2012
"Lamb" refers to any sheep under the age of 1 year. You should also know that most meat animals are butchered long before they've reached 1 year old. Pigs are usually 4 to 6 months when they're butchered. Same with goats and lambs, although I prefer to wait until my lambs are 8 or 9 months and around 100 pounds on the hoof.
photo
FaunaAndFlora
Daughter of Pan
01:38 AM on 04/09/2012
I'm going to wait for the studies that measure the environmental impact of crops before I buy this bs. I raise a few lambs every year for meat. They spend 8 or 9 months eating hay and grass before they are butchered. Of course, this is not representative of most lamb consumed in the USA.

I started raising lambs for my own kitchen because most lamb in American grocery stores comes from New Zealand or Australia. I've been a locavore for going on 29 years. Not that I'm a purist. I still drink coffee and black teas, but I do my best not to rely on foreign foods as staples. That said, most New Zealand and Aussie lambs are raised on pasture, which can actually improve habitat when done right. This is why I find it hard to believe that lamb, even when it comes from the southern hemisphere, is more harmful than bananas, mangoes, pineapples and other tropical fruits from Columbia, Honduras, Ecuador, the Philipines and so on, that can't be grown without destroying habitat and using pesticides.

Methinks some environmental groups are blinded by an anti-meat bias.
brw1970
Repeal the 16th Amendment!
07:52 AM on 04/09/2012
We raised chickens for a few years before moving. Fresh eggs were awesome and besides for the winter months, the chickens just walked around going through leave litter and eating some veggie scraps. Agree with your last statement completly.
11:25 PM on 06/21/2012
I eat meat too, and I have to say this is interesting, it does mention some non animal products here too: The Impacts - 2011 Meat Eaters Guide | Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change + Health | Environmental http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/
photo
FaunaAndFlora
Daughter of Pan
11:38 PM on 06/21/2012
The Environmental Working Group has a history of making claims based on the flimsiest of evidence. 
 
So I'll trade you a link for a link.  You might find this interesting.  ;-)
http://www.soilcarbon.com.au/case_studies/pdf/08TL_SCCPPP_En.pdf
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
westcoastsc
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhe
12:23 AM on 04/09/2012
All many people's favorites. It almost makes one feel like trying to be environmentally conscious is completely futile. Journalism's only intent should be to inform. When there is the statement that seems to me false that Tuna is raised and this is the reason there is such a big carbon footprint, it makes me question things. I know of a Japanese method of fishing that feeds fish at the call of a tone, but as far as I know that is not raising. Tuna must always be in movement or they will not be able to get enough oxygen, this precludes that raising does not happen.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
westcoastsc
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhe
01:17 PM on 04/08/2012
Why is there a picture of cod when they are talking about Salmon?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
westcoastsc
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhe
01:15 PM on 04/08/2012
Unless someone can show me different, tuna are not "raised".
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:37 PM on 04/07/2012
This article leaves out the opportunity that these foods present for generating electricity, heat and fuels from the wastes, that produce all of the GHG.

Waste bio char and bio fuels are the essential carbon negative, backup, solar and wind need.

Too bad you didn't think it through.

http://www.plancanada.com/biochar_basics.pdf
2$ per watt bio char energy plant. 150 Gt/y waste bio mass, 100 GW electricity

http://buildaroo.com/news/article/biofuel-from-human-waste-project-england/ 15% energy needs!
http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/10/04/idINIndia-51941620101004
13 billions tons animal manure per year
Humans 30kg dried sludge per year?
6B people. 180 B kg, 180 M tons from humans.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-07/world/eco.about.manure_1_manure-methane-carbon-dioxide?_s=PM:WORLD
6 cows enough methane for one home! chickens, pigs, sheepand goats also used mean 6 billion cattel equivalents, of enough for a billion households.
That's enough for everyone.
Also checked by uk link 15% from humans poo alone. over tens times as much animal poo,
again, more than all the energy needs just from shit.
another site lists 1.7B ton dry animal manure, 15 Gjoules per ton, 25 EJ per year,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/08/the-appeal-of-animal-waste-49621
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
north of 60
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
07:23 PM on 04/07/2012
The latest list of foods with the highest pesticide residue:

12 Most Contaminated

Peaches
Apples
Sweet Bell Peppers
Celery
Nectarines
Strawberries
Cherries
Pears
Grapes (Imported)
Spinach
Lettuce
Potatoes

12 Least Contaminated

Onions
Avocado
Sweet Corn (Frozen)
Pineapples
Mango
Asparagus
Sweet Peas (Frozen)
Kiwi Fruit
Bananas
Cabbage
Broccoli
Papaya
11:33 AM on 04/07/2012
Been vegan for 5 years now and one of the many reasons I feel so good eating this way is the mental well-being I have knowing that I have cut down on my carbon footprint a ton. Although I have to say I was surprised about the potatoes!
10:17 AM on 04/07/2012
So what are the best foods to eat? Not that I believe any of this anyway, I have no earthly idea how lamb can be the most damaging to the environment, just because someone says it is doesn't make it so. Where is rice in this entire equation? How did potatoes get on here, and rice didn't?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sabelmouse
i love to tumble , ask me why .
06:41 AM on 04/08/2012
maybe they mean that potatoes are shipped back and forth. i'm in ireland and see potatoes from south america ectr. for all i know the get irish potatoes over there. it's plain crazy but the same is done with lots of things.
the whole article is nonsense.
06:30 PM on 04/06/2012
Well this article sucks.

The article, including the slideshow, tell nothing about how these carbon footprints are actually calculated. And anyone and everyone who's ever followed the tale of carbon footprints knows that plenty of folks have no effing clue what they are doing when they try to make the calculations.

Case in point, the carbon footprints of lambs born to pasture-raised sheep are only a fraction of the carbon footprints of lambs born to sheep in concentrated animal feeding operations.

And no one in her or his right mind decries potatoes because their carbon footprint is high... ONLY if and when they are turned into Pringles or processed boxed Au Gratin Potatoes. Now *that* is stupid.

HuffPost, you've once again posted an almost entirely science-free article here. Congrats.
01:54 AM on 04/07/2012
Fanned and faved for saving me the trouble of writing a reply.
03:39 PM on 04/07/2012
Times two. Thanks.
02:21 PM on 04/06/2012
These kinds of articles are extremely unhelpful. The facts presented may be true, but in terms of the quality of advocacy? This is a *losing* argument. Being right is not the same thing as being persuasive.

If this is the best environmentalists can do, you better move off the coast and kiss the ass of those polar bears goodbye -- because wildlife will NEVER rank high enough on the importance scale to the broad mass of people. If it is a choice of polar bear vs cows, chickens, and pork? Polar bears are certain to go extinct.

If the argument is framed in terms of "worst foods"? Then the message to the listener is: fighting global warming means giving up or drastically cutting back on these these foods. Are you daft? Present that choice and you might as well buy land on the interior of Greenland and call it a solid investment with a **certain future**. Because that ice sheet is going to melt as surely as day follows night if that's the advocacy strategy chosen by environmentalists.

These are LOSING arguments and are unwinnable in a democracy. The broad mass of people are going to shrug and choose CO2+Methane and to hell with the consequences. That may not be the result you were looking for -- but it's the result you are certain to get.
dumocraps
My Screenname gets right to the point
01:57 PM on 04/06/2012
Beans are terrible when it comes to the environment, just smell the methane after you eat them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Acct Pre Deleted
my micro-bio is too awesome for HP approval
11:49 AM on 04/07/2012
Are you kidding? That is one of the benefits!

:D
photo
niko73
Dem belly full but we hungry
01:26 PM on 04/06/2012
I’m sure most of you would like one of my proposed solutions: buy local. My family buys a half of a lamb from local ranchers every year, and often pork and beef too. Not sure you’ll like my second solution, which is to hunt. As long as you’re hunting in your immediate vicinity, you’re having much less of an impact to the environment and you’re getting natural meat too.

With global warming and peek oil coming, I think we might have to say goodbye to the days of shipping exotic equatorial foods to the US.
06:17 PM on 04/06/2012
How about go vegetarian/vegan? You don't need meat to survive.
photo
niko73
Dem belly full but we hungry
09:46 PM on 04/06/2012
Faved. Not for me, but that would help even more.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lesley MacIntyre
Please pass the bacon.
07:57 AM on 04/08/2012
But you do need meat to thrive.
08:46 PM on 04/08/2012
I have many friends city and country folk who are raising chickens for eggs and meat. Purpose is to save money and lighten the footprint. Someone kindly explain to me what the harm is in that1
we label certain foods BAD without separating foods from their processing and transportation costs. Maybe this list applies to supermarket bought food. HP really owes us better research on this topic. People want to know and do well by their families. I blame HP not the environmentalists in this instance!).
10:55 AM on 04/09/2012
A modern broiler house can hold around 25,000 chickens raised for meat. A typical farm will have from two to four of these houses. So one family can raise up to 100,000 birds and do this five times per year for a 1/2 million birds produced by one family. I don't think your little chicken operations can compete with this efficiency and utilization of natural resources.
12:59 PM on 04/06/2012
Sure...

How about Kiwis, oranges, mandarines, dates and bananas? all the fuel and energy to bring them from around the world?

NEXT!!!!