{"id":1781632,"date":"2018-06-11T19:14:36","date_gmt":"2018-06-11T23:14:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.futurity.org\/?p=1781632"},"modified":"2019-10-17T16:46:07","modified_gmt":"2019-10-17T20:46:07","slug":"food-production-environmental-impact-1781632","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.futurity.org\/food-production-environmental-impact-1781632\/","title":{"rendered":"These meat and fish are worst for the environment"},"content":{"rendered":"

Which food type is worst for the environment\u2014livestock, farmed seafood, or wild-caught fish?<\/p>\n

The answer is that it depends, according to a new study. But in general, industrial beef production and farmed catfish are the most taxing on the environment, while small, wild-caught fish and farmed mollusks like oysters, mussels, and scallops have the lowest environmental impact, according to a new analysis.<\/p>\n

The authors of the study, which will appear in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment<\/em>, believe it is the most comprehensive look at the environmental impacts of different types of animal protein production.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/uwnews\/videos\/1849387205153866\/<\/a><\/p>\n

“From the consumer’s standpoint, choice matters,” says lead author Ray Hilborn, professor in the School of Aquatic and Fishery 糖心视频s at the University of Washington. “If you’re an environmentalist, what you eat makes a difference. We found there are obvious good choices, and really obvious bad choices.”<\/p>\n

The study is based on nearly a decade of analysis, in which the coauthors reviewed hundreds of published life-cycle assessments for various types of animal protein production. Also called a “cradle-to-grave” analysis, these assessments look at environmental impacts associated with all stages of a product’s life.<\/p>\n

Of the more than 300 such assessments that exist for animal food production, the authors selected 148 that were comprehensive and not considered too “boutique,” or specialized, to inform their new study.<\/p>\n

“This method gives us a really consistent measurement people can relate to…”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As decisions are made about how food production expands through agricultural policies, trade agreements, and environmental regulations, the authors note a “pressing need” for systematic comparisons of environmental costs across animal food types.<\/p>\n

“I think this is one of the most important things I’ve ever done,” Hilborn says. “Policymakers need to be able to say, ‘There are certain food production types we need to encourage, and others we should discourage.'”<\/p>\n

Broadly, the study uses four metrics as a way to compare environmental impacts across the many different types of animal food production, including farm-raised seafood (called aquaculture), livestock farming, and seafood caught in the wild. The four measures are: energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, potential to contribute excess nutrients\u2014such as fertilizer\u2014to the environment, and the potential to emit substances that contribute to acid rain.<\/p>\n

The researchers compared environmental impacts across food types by using a standard amount of 40 grams of protein\u2014roughly the size of an average hamburger patty, and the daily recommended protein serving. For example, they calculated how much greenhouse gas was produced per 40 grams of protein across all food types, where data were available.<\/p>\n

“This method gives us a really consistent measurement people can relate to,” Hilborn says.<\/p>\n

The analysis showed clear winners that had low environmental impacts across all measures, including farmed shellfish and mollusks, and capture fisheries such as sardines, mackerel, and herring. Other capture fish choices with relatively low impact are whitefish like pollock, hake, and the cod family. Farmed salmon also performed well. But the study also illuminated striking differences across animal proteins, and the researchers advise that consumers must decide what environmental impacts are most important to them when selecting their food choices.<\/p>\n

For food-related emissions, this U.S. diet is the worst<\/a><\/h5>\n

Some of the additional findings include:<\/p>\n