Circle of Responsibility

Because “the food system” isn’t limited to one industry, it’s hard to find data that outlines its total contributions to climate change. As a result, the Bon Appétit Management Company Foundation has compiled (and continues to collect) available data and created the Low Carbon Diet program, the first national program to highlight the significant connections between food and climate change. 

 

Agriculture in the U.S. food system relies heavily on fossil fuel; burning fossil fuels in the transportation and processing of food products cause carbon dioxide emissions. Even more significantly, livestock produce vast quantities of methane gas, and agricultural practices release nitrous oxide. These are the three most significant greenhouse gases. Reviewing at least 20 peer-reviewed papers published in respected science journals, the BAMCO Foundation realized how the entire food system is a major contributor to climate change. There is no one study that pulls it altogether so we have been piecing together the puzzle ourselves.  

 

What the Science Says

This is an emerging field. Lifecycle assessments, which examine the production process of an item from start to finish, have typically been conducted by experts in the field of manufacturing; applying that methodology to food products began in the late 1970s but was generally discontinued until recently. We expect to learn from new studies and refine our initiatives over time. In the meantime, the scientific literature identifies clear, major areas where the food system is a very significant contributor to greenhouse gases.

 

The science on this is clear. A report published by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that “overall, livestock activities contribute an estimated 18 percent to total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe)” (1). This is mainly due to the large quantities of methane gas released by cows (and other ruminants).

 

Other studies have compared the global warming effects of eating meat versus driving. It turns out, the typical American diet consisting of a high percentage of protein from cows especially contributes more to global warming than driving a typical sedan (2). 

 

Overall, the amount of animal protein consumed by Americans accounts for over 6% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) (2). Given this data, we believe that relatively small reductions by a large number of meat eaters (such as one meatless day per week or cutting portion size by a few ounces, which in many cases would also be consistent with USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans) could reduce U.S. contributions to global warming.

 

According to a British organization, Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), we “could make carbon savings equivalent to taking an estimated 1 in 5 cars off the road if we avoided throwing away all the food that we could have eaten” (3). Based on interviews, food diaries, observations, and a review of published national statistics, WRAP found that consumers in the U.K. “throw away about one-third of all the food they buy and at least half of this is food that could have been eaten.” The other half includes tea bags, egg shells, banana peels, etc. Household refuse rates in the U.S. seem to be comparable to those in Great Britain. Scientists at WRAP conclude that so much food is wasted because “we buy more than we need and we throw away food that is still perfectly edible” (3).

 

Examining consumer attitudes toward food safety and food waste, WRAP points out that the “focus on the health advantages of fruit and vegetable consumption is encouraging us all to buy an increasing amount of fresh produce, a significant proportion of which is wasted.” They found an interesting dichotomy: people are “concerned about throwing away plastic and other waste perceived of as non-biodegradable but less so about biodegradable waste which is not generally regarded as an environmental problem.” Their survey revealed that “40% of people thought that food thrown away is not an issue because it is ‘natural and biodegradable’ and that nearly three-quarters of people thought that packaging was more of a problem than food waste” (3).

 

Landfills are a significant contributor of methane emissions, a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide in trapping heat close to the earth’s surface. The big contributor to methane formation in landfills is organic matter – including, very significantly, food scraps (4).

A landmark study in 2002 noted that although “[s]weets, snacks and drinks are seldom studied in detail for their environmental impact,” the energy it takes to produce, process, package and transport these products is significant. “Scientists estimate that these products may well contribute up to a third of total energy inputs for food consumption” (5). In part this is due to the fact that processed foods have become a staple in modern diets and contribute to people eating higher quantities of them (and thus “consuming” more energy).

 

There is a growing awareness that some seafood, especially large fin fish such as salmon, tuna and cod, have very high energy inputs. Issues around farmed salmon are well-documented, but wild-caught fish are often caught by inefficient, fossil fuel-driven boats (6). In addition, fish that is sold “fresh” and was caught or farmed a great distance from where you buy it was almost certainly flown by air in gel-ice packaging or in water, such as live lobster.

 

Science researchers are also confirming that smaller species, such as herring, clams, and mussels, are generally low-carbon foods due to the particular fishing or farming methods that do not have many fossil fuel inputs. If flown a great distance as a “fresh” product, however, the benefits are largely cancelled (6).

 

While fruits and vegetables as a whole category contribute fewer emissions than animal proteins compared ounce for ounce, air-freighting highly perishable produce is extremely inefficient. The relationship between long-distance transportation and higher emissions is clear. A major study found that 50% of the travel-related emissions associated with importing fruits and vegetables into the U.K. came from items that were flown in even though they represent only 1.5% of the produce that is imported (5)!

 

In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there are other environmental (and culinary) benefits for sourcing local or regional fruits and vegetables (rather than from overseas). First, many highly perishable items that are grown overseas are bred for shelf-life (not flavor) and transported quickly (thus inefficiently), or picked unripe and gassed (neither flavorful nor energy-efficient). Second, we can optimize regional distribution of nearby farm products, creating a more energy-efficient method of transportation than air-freighting. Third, increasing our customers’ interest in seasonal products and creating demand for regional variations can contribute to better crop management (different varieties in different seasons) and biodiversity.

 

Click here for more reasons why you should buy locally grown foods.

 

Through test audits of several Bon Appétit kitchens, we received third-party independent data that showed minor equipment repairs can greatly reduce energy waste, with little expense, and that significant savings can be achieved by adhering to clear guidelines. For example, a small opening due to a worn-out seal on an oven door can cause as much as 30% extra energy being used to cook the same meals, according to Southern California Gas. A broken handle on a meat cooler costs only about $75 to fix but could be responsible for a 10% energy loss for this very energy-intensive piece of equipment, according to PG&E.

 

“Grab and go” packaging has long been an environmental irritant, and Americans still discard many items made from virgin and non-renewable products (such as plastic water bottles). Robust municipal recycling programs have made a significant difference, however, composting lags far behind. No independent research currently exists on the emerging field of bio-degradable packaging, though manufacturers are making various claims on the benefits of their products as compared to plastic and poly-styrene products.

 

In a conversation with the director of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, we learned that some bio-degradable products actually cause methane emissions if allowed to be part of the waste stream (i.e., sent to the landfill and not recycled). The best type of packaging is likely to be dependent on the municipality’s ability to recycle and compost products, the public’s willingness to participate in those programs, and the total lifecycle energy inputs into the production and distribution of the products (that is, how the product was grown, if it is plant-based material, manufactured, and shipped).

 

After reviewing these numerous studies, we are certain that the food choices we make every day can significantly impact climate change.  Researchers estimate that the average American diet produces more than 15 pounds of CO₂ per day which equals 5,600 pounds of CO₂ emissions per person per year (2). Compare that number to other “practical changes” suggested by respected environmental organizations that ask individuals to cut their carbon by taking shorter hot showers or changing light bulbs. A 10-minute shower is often cited as contributing four pounds of carbon per day (or 1,460 pounds of CO₂ per year); this is only about one-third the impact of our daily food choices!  

 

The Bon Appétit Management Company Foundation research points to that fact that by educating chefs and consumers with clear analytical tools, and modifying some purchasing standards, we can significantly reduce food-related contributions to climate change.

 

Based on the BAMCO Foundation’s research, Bon Appétit Management Company developed operational initiatives to minimize our carbon impact in addition to educational campaigns aiming to increase our consumers’ awareness about the issues. We are concerned about the world’s changing climate and we are actively working to minimize our contribution. Click here for a list of Bon Appétit’s specific Low Carbon Diet commitments.