A field of soybeans -- most of which are grown for animal feed. (Photo by Carol Vanhook.)

Now that we’ve touched on how much protein we need, let’s talk about how the production process behind high protein foods impacts the environment.

First, the big picture: While meat consumption has gone down slightly here in the U.S. in recent years, the rest of the world appears to be on the opposite track. Nearly half the protein eaten in the developed world comes from animals (compared to 28 percent of protein, worldwide) and, as incomes in larger developing nations like Brazil, India and China have picked up, so has the taste for meat.

World meat consumption more than doubled between 1950 and 2009 (bringing annual intake per person to over 90 pounds or around a quarter pound a day), and the uptick in consumption of eggs and milk has been similarly staggering. If we continue at this rate, by 2050 we’ll be eating two-thirds more animal protein globally than we are today.

Add to all this the fact that animal protein is more resource intensive to produce than fruits, vegetables, and grains, and you begin to understand why it’s especially important that the world gets its protein plan in order.

The story (or life cycle) of most animal-protein starts with acres of monocropped soybeans, corn, and wheat (grown with pesticides and nitrogen-heavy fertilizers that endanger the nation’s water tables, travel down the Mississippi river, and end up in the Gulf, where they lead to dead zones). Roughly 35 percent of the world grain harvest is used to produce animal protein. Then there are the energy-heavy factories where the grains and legumes are processed (often broken down chemically, to create soy isolates and other wonders of modern science) before they’re trucked around the country and fed to livestock kept in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) – or in around 1 percent of the time — on pasture or in smaller feeding operations.

Most of the recent research into food and environmental impact has focused on the carbon emissions implicit in this process, and – while that’s not the only rubric that matters – it has also shown that not all animal protein sources are the same. In fact, they require different resources or “inputs,” resulting in radically different carbon footprints.

Photo by Dot!

The vegetarian footprint

We all know that meat has a higher environmental cost than plant-based protein sources, but what about other animal protein, like dairy and eggs? If you’re a vegetarian, aka a lacto-ovo vegetarian (as opposed to a vegan, who eats no animal products at all), are your protein sources significantly more eco-friendly than meat?

Maybe not — especially if you eat a lot of cheese. A 2011 report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that a 4-ounce serving of cheese produces the same amount of greenhouse gas as driving 3.5 miles in a car, which means cheese has a larger carbon footprint than any other common protein source except beef and lamb. The report determined the footprints of 20 food items using life-cycle analysis, calculating emissions generated by growing the given crop or animal feed, raising the animals, processing their products, transportation, cooking, and disposal of unused food.

Milk, interestingly, has the third-lowest footprint of the 20 foods that EWG analyzed. Kari Hamerschlag, lead researcher and author of the report, explains that the carbon footprint of cheese is so much larger than that of milk because “it takes about 10 pounds of milk to make one pound of cheese.” Less-dense varieties, like cottage cheese, have a smaller footprint, because it takes less milk to produce them. Hamerschlag also clarifies that a normal serving size of cheese is 1-2 ounces instead of 4; the report uses 4 ounces because that is a typical serving for meat, and thus a good point of comparison with other foods. However, in terms of emissions per unit of protein (instead of per 4 ounces), cheese is still the third highest, behind beef and lamb. (Pound for pound, lamb has the highest carbon footprint of all meats—50 percent higher than beef—because lambs require similar quantities of feed as cows but produce less edible meat per animal. Not that they don’t have other benefits — but more on that later.)

What about eggs? According to the EWG report, the carbon footprint of a 4-ounce serving of eggs is equivalent to driving just a little over 1 mile—a lower footprint than any of the meat or fish products analyzed, so not too bad. But unless you’re Cool Hand Luke, the number of eggs you can eat in a day is fairly low; the 2010 Dietary Guidelines recommend no more than one egg per day, or seven per week. Egg production is also fairly water-intensive. One international study determined that it takes 2.29 liters of water to produce 1 calorie from eggs—more water per calorie than pork.

But don’t rush out and become vegan just yet. Danielle Nierenberg, director of Worldwatch Institute’s Nourishing the Planet project, says that while she is vegan, “I don’t agree that it’s always better for the environment — I don’t think the way a lot of vegans eat is very sustainable.” She says this is because many vegans eat a lot of heavily processed foods, like “imported soy products, vegan cold cuts — it takes the agriculture out of the food.” In other words, processed vegan products are a far cry from the nuts and soybeans they’re made from.

Cows and other grazers help pasture land sequester carbon. (Photo by Ready Subjects.)

The pasture factor

While a vegan diet may generally have a lower environmental impact than eating beef, there may be other benefits to supporting the production of sustainable livestock, like grass-fed meat. Few existing studies compare emissions from pasture-raised versus grain-fed, industrially produced meat, but there is some promising evidence. As the EWG report notes, grass-fed cattle may initially appear to contribute to higher emissions because they take longer to reach slaughter weight and thus emit more methane along the way. However, these increased emissions may be offset by the fact that pasture managed in conjunction with actively grazing cattle can help with soil carbon sequestration [PDF]. Then there’s also the fact that pasture-based feed doesn’t require energy-intensive inputs (such as fertilizer and pesticides), when compared to grains.

As Hamerschlag explains, “From an environmental perspective, you’re always going to be better off consuming plant protein. But given that people aren’t going to stop eating meat altogether, we need to support grass-fed approaches and integrated farming systems.” In such systems, animals are raised on farms that also grow grains and vegetables, and the manure these animals produce is used to fertilize the fields, help to minimize energy input on the farm. “If we want to grow our food, we need fertilizer, and it’s far better to generate that fertilizer from animals that we’re going to eat than from petroleum-based products and all the accompanying environmental impacts that come from producing chemical fertilizers,” Hamerschlag says.

In the developing world, Nieremberg says, integrated systems are the norm. “Farmers aren’t raising livestock on the scale that we are in the United States — they’re using kitchen waste, letting chickens forage between crops. It’s a natural, walking form of pesticide.”

Photo by Nomadic Lass.

Protein: It’s the center of the American plate and the central component of many weight-loss diets. And if you spend much time looking at ads in gyms or men’s magazines, you might think it’s the most important nutrient ever discovered. Granted, protein is essential for body processes like cell growth and repair, so if you don’t get enough of it there can be serious health consequences. But how much protein do we really need?

Less than you might think (or than marketers of high-protein products would have you believe). The CDC reports that most Americans get more than enough protein, so the average person doesn’t need to worry about deficiencies. According to American Dietetic Association (ADA) recommendations, most active adults only need 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day. (A kilogram is 2.2 pounds.) So a person who weighs 125 pounds needs 45 to 57 g of protein in a day; for someone who weighs 175 pounds, it’s 65 to 80 g. Serious athletes need a bit more, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

Non-meat sources of protein can add up quickly: For example, you could have a single-serving Greek yogurt for breakfast (13 g protein); a vegetarian omelet with two eggs (14 g) and 2 ounces of soft tofu (2 g) for lunch; a handful of almonds as a snack (6 g); and a cup of brown rice (5 g) with half a cup of beans (7 g) for dinner. And that’s not even counting the small amounts of protein contained in fruits and vegetables — about 2 grams per serving for leafy greens, broccoli, and potatoes, and 1 gram per serving for many other vegetables and fruits.

Of course, meat packs a bigger protein punch than plant sources. A reasonably sized 3-ounce steak has about 21 grams of protein, while the 12-ounce behemoths served at many restaurants contain more protein than most adults need in an entire day, and a 16-ounce steak provides more than twice the daily protein needs of the average woman. Chicken, pork, and fish all contain roughly the same amount of protein per ounce as beef (although the amount of resource and energy required to produce each food is quite different — but more on that soon).

A 16-ounce steak provides two times the amount of protein the average woman needs in a day.

For vegetarians, and even more so for vegans, protein needs are slightly higher — up to 1 g per kg per day, according to Linda Chio, R.D., of NYU Langone Medical Center. This is because non-animal protein sources are less “complete” than animal sources, meaning they do not contain quite enough of all the essential amino acids. But combining different plant-based protein sources — like grains and legumes, such as the brown rice and beans mentioned above — can help correct for this difference in quality. Research indicates that complementary protein sources don’t even need to be eaten in the same meal, as long as they are consumed in the same day.

If you’re a serious athlete, that’s where it gets a little tricky. Athletes’ protein needs are widely debated, but the ADA has established guidelines that can at least help get you in the right ballpark. If you regularly do endurance training — like running medium-length races or going on long bike rides — you should aim for 1.2 to 1.7 g per kg. For a 150-pound person, that would be 82 to 116 grams per day.  If you’re in heavy training — think preparing for a marathon or an Ironman competition — then you’ll want to get 1.4 to 2 g per kg. That works out to between 95 and 136 grams for our 150-pound athlete. If you’re into lifting weights and other strength training, you’ll need 1.6 to 1.7 g/kg. And if you’re an athlete who’s trying to lose weight, your protein needs will probably be at the higher end of the range for your chosen activity (although the latest research suggests that high-protein diets don’t help with weight loss). But many athletes may go overboard on the protein. A recent study by researchers at Saint Louis University found that a third of male collegiate athletes in the survey drastically overestimated their protein needs (and the other two thirds did not know how much they should be getting). Of course, the makers of protein supplements encourage this overconsumption: Some protein shakes or drinks contain 60 or 70 g of protein in one serving.

As Chio explains, consuming a large amount of protein at once, as in those shakes, just doesn’t make sense. “There is a point beyond which excess protein intake become less efficiently utilized,” she says, and then that extra protein gets excreted (or converted to fat, if you’ve eaten too many calories overall). Overconsumption of protein may also increase the risk of heart disease if the protein is from animal sources such as red meat, and too much protein can cause kidney damage in people whose kidneys are already mildly impaired. And that’s to say nothing of the natural resources (and money!) you’re probably wasting if the excess protein in your diet comes from energy-intensive sources.

So figure out how much protein you need, and try not to exceed it by too much. The planet, your wallet, and your waistline will thank you.

So you like whole-grain bread, pesticide-free plums, and low-fat meat? Better ask for a raise.

A recent study by researchers at the University of California-Davis reported that U.S. shoppers who consistently choose healthy foods spend nearly 20 percent more on groceries. The study also said the higher price of these healthier choices can consume 35 to 40 percent of a low-income family’s grocery budget. That’s bad news for public health. It’s also bad news for the organic-food market, since organics usually carry the highest price tag of all the healthy stuff out there.

Do organics make the list?

Eventually, analysts keep telling us, demand for organics will set the wheels in motion that will drive prices down. But eventually never seems to come. Even though organics sales are growing by about 20 percent a year — almost 10 times the rate of increase in total U.S. food sales, according to the Nutrition Business Journal — these cleaner, greener products still carry a hefty premium.

How many shoppers have to jump on the organic bandwagon before we actually see prices fall? How long will that take? And what’s the government’s role in all this? It depends who you ask.

Be Fruitful and Multiply

The organic market we know today began evolving in the 1960s and ’70s, when rising environmental awareness led to a backlash against pesticides and increased demand for “green” products. Over the last 20 years, the market has flourished, gaining enough stature to merit the introduction of nationwide U.S. Department of Agriculture certification standards in 2002. (Those guidelines have been attacked by some for being too weak; some producers also cause confusion by claiming to be “natural” or “sustainable” without being certified.)

Today, roughly three-quarters of conventional grocery stores carry natural and/or organic food, according to a 2002 Food Marketing Institute study. Restaurants across the country, from the high end to the greasy spoon, are plunking organic ingredients onto their menus. Still, organics represent only about 2 percent of the food industry, both in the U.S. and worldwide. And less than 10 percent of U.S. consumers buy organic items regularly, according to survey data from Nutrition Business Journal and the Hartman Group, a research firm specializing in the natural-products market. The $10.8 billion industry may be booming, but it’s not even close to overtaking conventional sales.

This is in part because of plain old economics. According to basic economic principles, in the short term, as demand grows, prices climb along with it; this small supply and growing demand is what’s now getting us, say, $4 quarts of milk. But in the long term, if the market continues to expand, consumption of organics should reach a higher plane where the cost per unit of processing, marketing, and distributing products is much lower. In other words, organic producers will build economies of scale. That price break, in turn, “could bring many more consumers into the market,” says Thomas Dobbs, a sustainable-agriculture economist at South Dakota State University. Trouble is, no one seems to know for sure when that will happen.

That’s because there are still so many exceptions to the rules, says Steven Blank, an agricultural economist at UC-Davis. Most organic farms in the U.S., for instance, are still small, often family-run operations that don’t necessarily fit the economy-of-scale model, because they don’t usually have high distribution costs that could be cut as demand rises. Many rely on farmers’ markets, community-supported agriculture, and other small-scale distribution channels. “We’re too local and hands-on for high distribution to change our costs significantly,” confirms Sarah Coddington, co-owner of Frog Hollow Farms in northern California.

And when the little guys grow delicate crops like peaches and plums that have to be handpicked, Blank says, they can’t reach the same economies of scale as farmers who harvest mechanically — their labor costs are too high. “If we have a bumper crop, everything costs more to do,” says Coddington.

Fresh, exciting.

Frog Hollow’s tree-ripened fruits have developed a nationwide reputation, and a single, succulent peach can run more than $3. But generally, “it” fruits from small farms are not the ones causing a strain on the bank account. Most organic fruits and vegetables — the largest sector of the organics market — are only 10 to 30 percent more expensive than their conventionally grown counterparts, and Dobbs says many people are willing to pay that kind of markup for better produce. Where economies of scale could really make a difference is in the world of frozen produce, processed foods, and animal products.

Those items typically cost 50 to more than 100 percent more than their conventional counterparts, according to a 2002 USDA study. In a survey conducted by Colorado-based Walnut Acres — which bills itself as America’s first organic-food company — price was a major barrier for nearly 70 percent of shoppers who didn’t usually buy organic items.

So to win these folks over, do organic producers have to start offering cheap cheese and budget bonbons? Dobbs makes a surprising estimate: if just one-third of American shoppers bought organic foods on a regular basis, most prices would come down to that 10 to 30 percent markup we’re seeing on produce today.

Still seems expensive, but Dobbs says a third of U.S. consumers could afford to buy at today’s prices if we chose to. The reason we can afford more than we think? We’re already paying that much — and more — for supposedly cheap food.

More than Meats the Eye

Conventional crops are heavily subsidized by the federal government in the United States, making them artificially inexpensive. Couple those subsidies — which have been in place since the New Deal — with the cost of cleaning up pollution and treating health problems created by conventional farming, and we’re paying a lot in taxes in order to pay a pittance at the grocery store.

“When we make the argument that low-income people can’t afford organics, we’re assuming that the prices of conventionals are the prices we should be paying,” says a USDA economic researcher who asked to remain anonymous. “But those prices externalize a lot of costs, like pollution and higher energy inputs.”

A study last year by Iowa State University economists showed that the annual external costs of U.S. agriculture — accounting for impacts such as erosion, water pollution, and damage to wildlife — fall between $5 billion and $16 billion. (For context, that’s as much as twice the EPA’s 2005 budget.) And Michael Duffy, a coauthor of the Iowa paper, says his team’s estimate is conservative.

So will this drive frustrated consumers to the o-side? Hardly. If anything, the taxes consumers already pay to support conventional farming are a disincentive to paying “double” for organics. To encourage a shopping shift, as European agricultural researchers Stephan Dabbert, Anna Maria Haring, and Raffaele Zanoli write in Organic Farming, government has to throw farmers a bone.

“In Western Europe, most countries have decided that organic agriculture needs special support to bring production [and consumption] up to a significantly higher level,” Dobbs notes. In countries including Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, and also at the European Union level, governments contribute to organic markets. In fact, many European policy makers treat organic farming as an instrument to help mitigate environmental problems, manage marginal lands, and address falling farmer incomes, according to Dabbert, et al.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., scant federal money is set aside strictly for organic farmers. The industry doesn’t even have access to the type of pricing data and guarantees available to conventional farmers, says University of Georgia agricultural economist Luanne Lohr. “In order to induce producers to get into the [organics] market, they need to know what kind of prices and revenue they’re looking at,” she says. Without that information, “the producers are flying blind,” at the mercy of large distributors who can set unfair prices. “A lot of people would be willing to go into organic, but they don’t want to just throw away their investment [in their conventional farms] to get into a system in which they don’t have price guarantees,” says Lohr.

The success of the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, which dispenses grants that help conventional farmers implement more sustainable practices, suggests subsidies are a key part of encouraging such changes. Deputy Chief Tom Christensen reports that so many farmers are interested in the $3.9 billion program that only one in four applicants is given funding.

Loaves and Wishes

Subsidies are a useful way to increase supplies, experts say, but they’re only effective in conjunction with a well-run market. “Regulations that promote organic agriculture by encouraging supply are not … sufficient to ensure the continuous growth of the organic sector,” wrote Nadia Scialabba, a senior officer of environment and sustainable development for the U.N., in 2001.

Scialabba cited the case of Austria, which was the leading organic producer in the E.U. in the mid-1990s. About 10 percent of farmers in the country decided to go organic because of subsidies offered by the government, but this increase in supply was met with inadequate information, distribution, and marketing channels; as a result, many threw in the trowel. They had the money — they just needed a market.

Some other policies that would effectively increase supply have been contentious. For instance, the USDA has been criticized for allowing dairy farmers to be certified while still in the process of converting conventional cows to organic status. (Such status depends on the grain fed to the cows.) Somewhat ironically, a ruling this January that reversed that provision could hurt the market, at least temporarily. Some of the companies making “organic” products under the weaker standards might jump ship due to the higher production costs under the stricter guidelines, says Lohr. This could slow progress “as the industry reorients itself” around the new rules, she says.

Such dilutions and confusion can cause consumers to lose trust in the organic label and stop buying, according to a 2002 report presented by German researchers to the U.N. Environment Program. Lohr predicts that the rules will continue to be challenged in years to come, “because if there’s demand for organic, people want to make it easy for farmers to become certified.”

One thing is clear: though organics have been around for a half-century, unknowns still rule. Long-range studies are few and far between, says UC-Davis’ Blank. And most economists don’t wager a guess on when pricing will change. For now, in the absence of federal support, they put their money on consumer education driving the market.

“It’s a matter of the public really knowing what they get when they buy organic,” Blank says. The necessary increase in demand, he adds, is likely to happen only if shoppers develop a pro-organic philosophy before they ever set foot in the store.