Meat vs. Climate: The Debate Continues

At least since a 2006 United Nations report asserted that livestock is responsible for a full 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions — a higher percentage than that caused by transportation — a debate over meat consumption and climate change has been cooking.
The latest round involves a recent editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine by Barry M. Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. In it, Mr. Popkin revisits several studies linking meat not just with heart disease and other health issues, but also with worldwide consumption of energy and water resources — and global warming.
Water use, Mr. Popkin writes, is two to five times greater worldwide for animal-source food than for basic crops such as legumes and grains. He further argues that livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process in the United States and is also responsible for one-third of the total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous to surface water.
He also cites the 2006 U.N. study.
“Overall, scholars first question the sustainability of modern agriculture in general,” Mr. Popkin writes, “and second, they question the much higher energy use of producing animal foods.”
Not surprisingly, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which describes itself as a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers, issued a press release this week disputing Mr. Popkin’s editorial.
“It is beyond dispute that any connection between meat production and global warming is a false one,” said David Martosko, the group’s director of research, in a phone interview.
The C.C.F. said the United Nations’ conclusion that 18 percent of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture was also exaggerated. The group instead points to an Environmental Protection Agency report that puts the figure for all agriculture production — including meat — at just 6 percent.
Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is “stretching the truth beyond recognition.”
“Eating less meat isn’t going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It’s not gonna make a difference,” he said.
Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom’s assertions, said he stood by his claims.
“This is what the food industry always does — just like the tobacco industry,” he said. “They obfuscate without ever looking at facts