Pass the Tofurkey
After more than two decades as a vegetarian, I scarcely think about meat. We have a kosher home and I do most of the cooking. My husband (to his great regret) is a “vegetarian by marriage.” But last week, he kindly offered to cook dinner. To my dismay, my four-year old loved Daddy’s grilled chicken breasts. Gone was the child we typically cajole to eat two bites of his veggie burger or tofu curry.
He paused from eating only long enough to query, “Mommy, where does chicken come from?”
“Where do you think chicken comes from, dear?”
My son paused for at least 20 seconds before retorting, “…Pigs?”
I had clearly failed as a Jewish mother: my kosher, near-vegetarian child was eating something he thought was a pig. And he’d asked for seconds.
I recovered from this double affront and launched into a thoughtful discussion about why mommy doesn’t eat meat. I chose my words with care. I hope my son eventually chooses to become a vegetarian. But I also don’t want him to condemn his father. I had little to fear. At the close of my careful monologue, my son declared, “I’m a T-Rex. You’re a stegosaurus.” And he took another bite.
Last Thursday, millions of Americans celebrated Thanksgiving—no doubt consuming a significant share of the roughly 270 million turkeys raised in the United States this year. And while turkey is far less energy-intensive than other forms of meat, it is, nonetheless, still responsible for significant carbon emissions. A British analysis found that a “typical” holiday meal for a group of eight produces the equivalent of 20 kg of carbon dioxide emissions—with the life cycle of the turkey alone credited for 60 percent. [Reader: take some comfort in the fact that British imports of cranberry sauce from the U.S. account for roughly .5 kg.] Combined, British revelers consume the carbon equivalent of 6,000 car trips around the world or 300 return car journeys to the moon in a single holiday. I hesitate to do the math for the U.S.
Of course, turkey is not the worst offender. Nonetheless, the UN reports that meat production (of all kinds) accounts for nearly one-fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, raising cattle is worse for the environment than driving cars. And global meat consumption is poised to double by mid-century.
Unfortunately, according to Scientific American, keeping kosher doesn’t necessarily help. While Jews don’t traditionally eat pork (despite the perceptions of my four-year old), we don’t necessarily replace these calories with “low-carbon” veggies. And, replacing pork and shellfish with beef will only increase emissions.
This year, I was spared the angst of witnessing my son’s rapture for turkey. We shared Thanksgiving with our dear friends in Boston—who don’t keep kosher. And so, it was wild rice and brussel sprouts for Kefer and kin.
[For low-carbon vegetarian alternatives, visit Gentle Thanksgiving.]
[If you do choose to eat meat this holiday season, visit www.kolfoods.com to learn why you needn’t choose between keeping your values and keeping kosher.]
[Click here to determine the carbon emissions of your meals.]
I want to be sure I understand. How does eating meat increase CO2 emissions? Is it the cattle we raise and the methane they emit in ways that I won’t elaborate on? In which case it’s methane, and not CO2. If we stopped eating meat, I assume the cattle population would delcine resulting in less methane, unless the population of other herbivores, not raised for food, increased. Or is there some other mechanism that I’m not aware of? Mike
Jennifer – both Carol and I thought that the first several paragraphs of your entry were the funniest stuff we’ve read in quite a while. You’re a great writer, and it seems as if Ari has his mom’s way with words! Evan and Carol
Mike,
Indeed, cows do emit methane (in precisely the ways you suggest in your note). Methane is 23 times more potent than CO2 – and is typically “converted.” Thus, when climate bills address “GHGs” they are referring to six different pollutants – including both CO2 and methane. Meat is also more resource intensive than vegetables/ grains. Thus, you need more land to feed the same number of people. This means you are cutting down more trees (which absorb carbon) to raise beef.
Jennifer
Thank you for this.
I had a similar experience with my daughter when she was three — as you apparently did in a different way with your son. She asked what is chicken — and how does that relate to the chickens that she saw at a farm? When she realized the connection, she asked, “What happened? what did they do?”
And she was terribly hurt, even ashamed when the picture came into focus.
Ever since she has been a very reluctant meat eater….
best to you,
Fred
Fred,
Unfortunately, my son did not have the same reaction. Rather, he opined, “Mommy doesn’t eat meat because she likes the chickens to live on the farm. But I can eat meat because I like the way it tastes.”
Mike, to (hopefully) answer your question: It isn’t eating meat that increases CO2 emissions, it is the whole process of raising cattle. Feeding them grain (which not only has the carbon footprint of raising the feed, but also transporting it), whatever additional energy uses there are in raising them, and then transporting them for slaughter and then butchering and then transporting them all over again. And let’s not forget the carbon in the packaging, especially if the packaging includes foam plates. I am sure I am forgetting something here. And raising grass fed cattle does eliminate a significant portion of the carbon produced. Mark
I can’t help but think about my so-far vegetarian grandson facing a similar epiphany someday . . . and how we’ll handle it. His parents avoid meat for themselves and never feed it to him out of health concerns, but I hope that leads to a deeper consciousness for him.
Have you read Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma? If so what do you think of the environmental impact of rotational grass-fed techniques like Polyface Farms? I am very intrigued by what they are doing, though I agree with Pollan that it is not sustainable for industrial-scale farming.
http://www.polyfacefarms.com
–Lisa G.
Kol hakavod, Jennifer, for your wonderful article that helps reveal the inconvenient truth that even Al Gore generally does not addresss.
With the world heading toward an unprecedented catastrophe from global warming, it seems to be madness that the typical American diet is contributing so much to that warming, when there are so many healthy, delicious plant-foods available.
And there is much more that could be added to your splendid, very thoughtful article:
* At a time when an estimated 20 million peple are dieing annually due to hunger and its effects, the
world is not only feeding almost 7 billion people, but also about 56 billion farmed animals annually, and 40 percent of the world’s grain is fed to these animals destined for slaughter.
* On a day that religious leaders in Israel went to Lake Kinneret to pray for rain at a time when Israel faces the severest drought in its history, we should consider that an animal-based diet requires up to 14 times as much water than a vegan diet.
There is much more, including that animal-based diets are a major contributor to the current epidemic of chronic degenerative diseases that are afflicting Jews and others.
For more information, please see my many articles on the subject at JewishVeg.com/schwartz and please see our documentary “A Sacred Duty: Applying Jewih Values to Help Heal the World” at ASacredDuty.com.
Best wishes,
Richard (Schwartz)
President, Jewish Vegetarians of North America
Lisa,
Michael Pollan, as you note, introduces the most sustainable method of meat production I have ever heard of. I’ve even had the chance to see it in action at Stone Barns in New York – http://www.stonebarnscenter.org.
As you assumed in your question, any form of meat production has environmental consequences. (Noted in earlier comments:) Animals produce methane – a potent GHG, and calorie for calorie, plants are more efficient.
Still, every decision has environmental ramifications – meat from Polyface Farms or Stone Barns (in my opinion) isn’t a bad offender.
My vision of the future is that someday, kids will ask, “Mom, why are these slices called turkey? Why are these nuggest called chicken?”
And we will say, “Because once, a long time ago, they used to make these slices, and nuggets, out of *dead birds.*”
And the kids will be mildly horrified by the barbaric practices of their grandparents, and be glad that they live now.
Jo,
I know too many people who only eat meat that has no resemblance to the animal from which it came. I hope that people today ask those questions – not to only accept that they come from dead animals, but that those nuggets (mostly) come from an abusive, wasteful and destructive system.
I enjoyed this posting. I am kosher but not a strict vegetarian, but for about 25 years I have limited my meat intake and tried to encourage my family members to do the same. This is principally for environmental reasons. For my family, I have proposed a goal (which we generally achieve) that we eat 1/3 of the total meat that the average American consumes, and significantly less that fraction of red meat (my personal goals are much stricter). Such a goal seems attainable for family’s generally, with what would be significant positive health as well as environmental benefits.
Of course, the demise of Agriprocessors, at least on the west coast, is having the effect of limiting red meat intake for those who keep kosher.
(For a while I felt we were running a single family boycott of the company, but now all of that has changed, as the problems at the company have become widely known).