|
CONTRARY to what some people say, agriculture's carbon footprint actually is one of the smallest of the sources of carbon emissions, or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in the U.S.
Dr. Barry Popkin, a nutritionist at North Carolina University who ranted against consuming red meat and processed meat in an editorial in a medical journal two weeks ago (Feedstuffs, March 30), also blamed livestock and meat production for contributing significantly to climate change and global warming.
The source for his opinion was a 2006 climate change report by an international organization that lumped all agricultural nations together and suggested that livestock production is responsible for 18% of all GHG emissions in the world -- more than from transportation.
However, the authors of that report did not take into consideration that U.S. livestock production is far more efficient and environmentally sustainable than livestock production in many other countries, noted David Martosko, director of research at the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF).
Martosko said his source is an April 2008 report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that found that U.S. agriculture -- including fruit, vegetable, grain, meat and fiber production -- accounts for just 8% of GHG emissions, far less than other sources (Figure).
He added that the EPA data showed that GHGs specifically from meat production account for only 2.58% of total emissions.
Global estimates from the report Popkin cited -- "Livestock's Long Shadow" by the U.N. Food & Agricultural Organization -- don't apply to U.S. agriculture and meat production, Martosko said. (The report was the topic of a recent Feedstuffs FoodLink article [Feedstuffs, Jan. 19].)
CCF is an organization funded by food companies, restaurants and consumer members. | 
