A trio of researchers from the Technical University of Munich, the University of Greifswald and the University of Augsburg have found that the meat production process for organic meats produces approximately the same amounts of greenhouse gases as does the conventional meat production process. In their paper published in the journal Nature Communications, Maximilian Pieper, Amelie Michalke and Tobias Gaugler describe their study of the impact of global food production on climate change and what they found.
As the planet continues to warm, researchers continue working to better understand the sources of greenhouse emissions. In this new effort, the researchers looked at greenhouse emissions related to food production.
In looking at food production, the researchers placed food products into three main categories: conventional meat production, organic meat production and plant-based food production. They also took into account the emissions produced during different stages of the production process—emissions produced while growing and processing feed and fertilizer, for example, and methane released by animals and from their manure.
The data revealed little difference in greenhouse gas emissions from conventional meat production and that grown organically. They found that emission reductions by organically grown animals (in which fertilizer is not used to produce feed) were often offset by increases in methane released due to slower growth rates and the need to raise more animals, as organically fed animals tend to produce less meat. More specifically, they found very little difference in emissions between conventionally produced beef and beef grown organically. They also found that organically grown chickens produced slightly more emissions than those grown conventionally, and that organic pork produced fewer emissions than conventional pork.
The researchers suggest the need for meat taxes that reflect the environmental cost of their production. They calculated such a tax for conventional beef would raise its price by approximately 40% while organic beef would see a price increase of just 25% (because it is already more expensive than regular beef). Prices for animal-related products, such as cheese or milk, would also rise. Prices for food plants, on the other hand, would remain nearly the same.
Explore further How to cook Christmas dinner in the most environmentally friendly way possible
More information: Maximilian Pieper et al. Calculation of external climate costs for food highlights inadequate pricing of animal products, Nature Communications (2020). Journal information: Nature Communications Maximilian Pieper et al. Calculation of external climate costs for food highlights inadequate pricing of animal products, Nature Communications (2020). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-19474-6
RealSnarlak on January 3rd, 2021 at 09:33 UTC »
I commented about this article a few days ago when it was posted in /r/environmentalism , so apologies for reposting that response here, but there are a few points worth making about the study that I don't see in the comments below.
This is a very silly summary (the phys.org one, not any of yours, just to be clear). It's summarizing an article from nature communications that compares the environmental impacts of three meat products: traditional, organic, and plant-based.
But the study isn't really about these environmental impacts per se. It's actually about how we should introduce taxes on meat products based on how much greenhouse gas gets released when we raise them.
The summary at phys.org doesn't link to the original article as far as I can tell, but the actual article is called "Calculation of external climate costs for food highlights inadequate pricing of animal products" (just as a point of reference as to what it's really about).
According to the article's authors, who use Germany as a case study, Germany can address the environmental impact of meat production by taxing meat so that its price after tax would include the costs of fixing the environmental damage that it causes.
If Germany did this, the costs to consumers of buying "traditional" meat would increase a lot, the costs to consumers of buying organic meat would increase somewhat (it's already priced higher than traditional meat, hence less of a cost increase), and the costs to consumers of buying plant-based meat would be largely unaffected. (Whether the tax is on producing, selling, or buying these products, it is assumed that the cost will be passed on to consumers - that's why I say "cost to consumers" in the previous sentence, before anyone takes issue with that!).
The result would be that people would have to make different choices about what types of meat to buy, because if they want to buy destructive traditionally-grown meat, they also have to pay to clean up its effects! And for those who DID still want to buy traditional meat, that would also be ok, according to the authors of the study, because now there would be tax money to better address the environmental impacts of growing it.
But yeah, apparently traditional and organic meats have similar greenhouse impacts. Mmkay. Not really the point. Get it together, Phys.org!!
Also, the original article is open access, so you can read it if you want to! It's available here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19474-6
Dolt-Dragoman on January 3rd, 2021 at 08:26 UTC »
That's because organic meat has never been offered as a solution to climate change.
sean488 on January 3rd, 2021 at 06:40 UTC »
Why would anyone think it would make a difference?