U.S. Government
International
Academic, Non-Governmental
I must start out with a disclaimer. I am biased on this topic. I desperately want the answer to be yes, cooking can save the planet.
That’s because in August, I committed to 365 days of scratch cooking after being inspired by a Michael Pollan article on the decline of cooking and the subsequent rise in the packaged food industry.
Among the things I have made from scratch are ricotta cheese, sour cream, brioche (photo, above) and tortillas — easy; as well as potato chips, croissants, tamales and candied ginger — not so easy, but mostly worth the effort.
A friend used to tell me that saying natural child birth is like saying natural surgery; if the drugs exist, just use them. And there are days when I think the same about convenience foods; there is a reason that candied ginger comes in nice little plastic packages from who knows where because really, who has the time to boil and rinse and boil and rinse and boil and rinse and then cook for an hour to make what is ostensibly a garnish.
So, when I called Helene York, the director of strategic initiatives at Bon Appétit Management Company and the architect behind the company’s Low Carbon Diet program to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from food service operations, I was really hoping she would tell me that packaged foods account for a large enough portion of the carbon emissions in the food system to make all that kneading and stirring and chopping worthwhile. After all, this is the company that set a goal of reducing meat on the menus in their 400 corporate and university cafes by 25 percent over two years and actually reached 33 percent.
The first thing York explained is that roughly 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States come from what we eat, and about 1/3 of emissions globally are connected to the food system.
“People shouldn’t feel guilty about enjoying food, especially if they choose the amount of food they actually eat and really enjoy it,” says York, explaining that waste within the food system, at the farm level, processing level and at the table is a major problem.
But, she says “we might want to consider a little less of certain foods and make them a treat … there are choices we can make that minimize what we’re responsible for in terms of emissions. Just like we might choose to drive less or turn off the appliances, we shouldn’t ignore the role that food plays.”
I can verify through personal experience that when you start making your own French fries or potato chips, they definitely become a treat rather than a daily, or even weekly, indulgence. Like Pollan explained in his article, though, once somebody else starts doing all the work,
that changes. But what about the role of processing and packaging in the emissions profile of our diet?
York warned me that deriving a percentage of emissions from food made in industrial kitchens is complex due to a number of factors.
“On an overall U.S. basis, very little, maybe 5 to 10 percent of food emissions, come from processing and packaging,” she explained.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next page »
Can "connecting the dots" between humans and climate save us?
Dear Leslie Berliant,
Some day soon, I hope you and other splendid commentators will find adequate ways to directly acknowledge the global challenges of our times by helping us "connect the dots" between human overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities on one hand and climate destabilization, natural resource dissipation and and environmental degradation on the other.
It seems to me that any "truth" about Earth's ecology and climate science need to be coupled with the best available science about human population dynamics and the human overpopulation of our planetary home.
When the moment of 'throwing out life preservers' occurs, it will probably be too late for human action to do anything meaningful about the human-forced global threats that once loomed ominously before the human family. Time will have been wasted. We will have been fiddlin' while Earth's environs were destroyed for human habitation and its resources were being recklessly depleted. Father Greed will have effectively ravaged Mother Nature. Although global threats had called out to leaders for global interventions, there were no transformational leaders (except Barack Obama) and international institutions (including the United Nations) empowered with adequate authority to promote necessary change.
At bottom, while there was still time to make a difference, many too many leading environmentalists, politicians, economic powerbrokers, talking heads in the mass media and other public opinion shapers colluded in stony silence and did not speak out loudly and clearly about the colossal threat that is posed to the family of humanity by the gigantic scale and skyrocketing growth of human population numbers now overspreading the surface of Earth.
Threats to human wellbeing and environmental health cannot be reasonably addressed and sensibly overcome until the root causes of the threats are acknowledged, validated by science, and widely shared in the human community, I suppose.
Very best regards,
Steve
Post new comment