Slashdot Mirror


Study Claims Lettuce Is "Three Times Worse Than Bacon" For GHG Emissions (cmu.edu)

davidshenba writes: Sticking to a vegetarian diet may not the best for environment — in fact, it might be harmful to it. According to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas emissions per calorie. "There's a complex relationship between diet and the environment," Ph.D. student Michelle Tom said. "What is good for us health-wise isn't always what's best for the environment. That's important for public officials to know and for them to be cognizant of these tradeoffs as they develop or continue to develop dietary guidelines in the future." As you might suspect some find the study dubious at best.

21 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. If this is debunked in the summary, why post it? by Sowelu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Subject says it all. Editors, this is literally your job. Don't give equal time to obvious lunatics.

  2. Ha by liqu1d · · Score: 5, Funny

    nasty vegetarians try to take my precious.

    1. Re:Ha by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Funny

      The simple fact is that if animals weren't meant to be eaten, then they wouldn't have been made out of food. Besides, there is plenty of evidence that shows that animals are, in fact, delicious.

    2. Re:Ha by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that, they provide a concentrated source of necessary nutrition, some of which is really hard to find in just plants...

      Can you Say vitamin B12?

      However, even though I'm not a vegetarian, or a vegan, or an environmentalist who's into saving the world from global warming, Count me one of the folks who hold this study in low regard.... If you set out to arrive at a conclusion, it's always possible though careful weeding out of the data you use. Just ask the global warming crowd..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  3. Re:If this is debunked in the summary, why post it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The title is about lettuce, the article that "debunks it" says that vegetarians will not eat only lettuce. So the title is correct.

  4. The actual paper says nothing of the sort by burtosis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The paper simply cites that on a per calorie basis many vegtables like lettuce, cucumbers, celery, etc are worse for the enviornment. It's actually obvious because these foods have no nutritional value with respect to calories, yet require water and other resources to bring to the table. The same paper states nutrition rich plant materials are actually better. The "debunking" article is just a knee jerking response and addresses "issues" that were never brought up in the paper. What we need to help fix this planet are people that run off of logic, not emotions.

  5. Re:How about... by hawguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's focus on truly man made emissions, you know shit coming out of cars, coal plants, etc and stop trying to figure out how much a cow farts or how much is generated by eating lettuce. What a waste of time and money. All of the cows and lettuce eating people on the planet pail in comparison to one coal plant.

    Those cow farts are pretty much just as man made (and damaging) as your car when you look at a typical cattle (or chicken or hog) farm and the amount of mechanization that goes into turning grain and other feed into the meat in your supermarket.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/e...

    But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

  6. 3x GHG emissions *per calorie* by Namarrgon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since lettuce has far more water than calories, that's not much of a surprise. You'd have to eat a mountain of lettuce to get the same caloric intake as a couple of rashers of bacon. But few people eat lettuce for the calories; vegetarians often get most of theirs from nuts, mushrooms & soy, for example - none of which appear to be covered in the study

    eating a vegetarian diet could contribute to climate change

    Sure, but less so than most diets involving meat (disclaimer: not a vegetarian). The study also includes dairy foods and even seafood, which seems odd for a vegetarian diet but maybe bolsters their desired conclusion (cheese in particular is pretty GHG-intensive). The result seems to be more useful for fuelling misleading media quotes like the above, than for making informed decisions.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    1. Re:3x GHG emissions *per calorie* by Guybrush_T · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Big news : mushrooms are 0 calories, so they're emitting *infinite* greenhouse gas per calorie. I'm surprised there is not an infinite quantity of greenhouse gas on earth.

      Oh, wait, because we're not trying to get even 1 calorie from eating mushrooms !

    2. Re:3x GHG emissions *per calorie* by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Pretty damned close actually looks like about 38cal per 100g. Compared to about 200cal per 100g for steak. Not infinite but about 5X less for the same weight. So it is quite possible on a per calorie basis mushrooms lettuce (even worse at 15cal) etc are worse for the environment than meat. But really that probably just means we should be eating the grains like we feed to the animals vs lettuce if we want to be efficient. Man does not live on bread alone, but it helps. Mah, till they make a veggie that tastes and has the texture of bacon I'll keep eating Porkie.

    3. Re:3x GHG emissions *per calorie* by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is not that people eat meat, the problem is there are so damn many of us eating anything at all.
      No, the problem is: anout 50% of all food offered in supermarkets is thrown away. Directly at the supermarket. They don't even iffer it to the poor.
      The ideacthat there are to many people is an american urban legend.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:3x GHG emissions *per calorie* by runningduck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with the study is the selective use of calorie as a measure instead of nutrient.

      --
      -rd
    5. Re:3x GHG emissions *per calorie* by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with the study is the selective use of calorie as a measure instead of nutrient.

      There are many problems with this study. Comparing cucumbers to pork is silly, since people don't eat cucumbers as a substitute for bacon. If you want to compare something to bacon, then you should compare tofu, beans, tempeh, or peanuts. But then you would find that per calorie or per gram of protein, the veggie option is far better for the environment, and then there is no shocking headline to generate clicks.

    6. Re:3x GHG emissions *per calorie* by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not 0 when I sautee them in butter and eat them with bacon.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    7. Re:3x GHG emissions *per calorie* by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is a german source: https://www.zugutfuerdietonne....

      Obviously in your country it might be different.

      In the US it seems 30% - 40% : http://www.worldfooddayusa.org...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:3x GHG emissions *per calorie* by tbannist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Comparing cucumbers to pork is silly, since people don't eat cucumbers as a substitute for bacon

      Actually, it isn't. Comparing the GHG per calorie of any two foods isn't silly, it's basic research. However, drawing conclusions about different diets based on unrepresentative samples of the components of the diets is silly, and that's what a lot of the people writing the articles around this study seem to be doing. It is important, however, to always remember that it's the job of those writers to get us to click on the links and see the ads, not provide us with rational analysis.

      The original study compares the USDA recommended food mix to the current American diet and finds that the USDA recommended diet would increase GHG emissions and energy usage, even if the number of calories was reduced to the recommended amount to maintain a healthy weight. It should be noted that the recommended diet is not vegetarian, and that a vegetarian diet was not considered in the study, so anything about how vegetarian diets compare to omnivorous diets is trolling for clicks.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    9. Re:3x GHG emissions *per calorie* by Muros · · Score: 3, Informative

      Our digestive systems are not as good as cows' for processing that stuff.

      Yes, but it's not orders of magnitude worse. To eat a cow, you have to grow it to the point where it's worth slaughtering before you cut it up and get some delicious sizzling steaks.

      How many meals do you think the cow eats in that time?

      Apparently they're slaughtered at between 3 and 16 weeks for good beef. How many meals do you think they eat in that time?

      3-16 weeks? Cattle will be slaughtered at around 3 years age. Are you thinking of chickens?

  7. Bacon sales down? by k6mfw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Kind of like when wine sales are down, a scientific report is released about health benefits of occasional glass of wine.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  8. Re:Quit the wishful thinking. Story ain't debunked by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're ignoring the debunker's point, which is that meat-eaters don't just eat bacon, and vegetarians don't just eat lettuce.

    In order to compare the environmental effects of diets, you need to do a full inventory of the foods in them, not just a comparison of two items.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  9. Re:If this is debunked in the summary, why post it by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article "debunking" it also claims moral high ground for it's author. Not ironically, the author actually claims that. The author actually uses the argument that she is right because she is better than other people.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  10. Re:If this is debunked in the summary, why post it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    should be celibated for their contribution to the world

    That seems harsh!