Source:  Ann Bagel Storck, MEATINGPLACE.COM, 11/9/09

Although many consumers believe eating grass-fed meat or locally grown food are environmentally friendly decisions, that's not always the truth, according to a paper presented at the 71st Cornell Nutrition Conference.

Pasture- or grass-fed meat is perceived to be more eco-friendly than conventionally produced beef, said Jude Capper, an assistant professor of dairy sciences at Washington State University and one of the paper's authors. However, the time needed to grow an animal to slaughter weight is nearly double that of animals fed corn, she noted, which means that energy use and greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef are increased three-fold in grass-fed beef cattle. In total, finishing the current U.S. population of 9.8 million fed-cattle on pasture would require an extra 60 million acres of land.

Another emerging trend among American consumers is the desire to purchase food grown locally. "Often 'locally grown' food is thought to have a lower environmental impact than food transported over long distances due to carbon emissions from fuel," Capper said. "This simplistic approach fails to consider the productivity of the transportation system, which has tremendous impact on the energy expended per unit of food."

The desire to protect the environment and to do so, in part, by altering personal behaviors, is admirable, Capper said. However, she emphasized that those decisions must be based on logic rather than intuition.

"Consumers might think they are making the responsible, virtuous food choices, when, in truth, they are supporting production practices that consume more natural resources, cause greater pollution and create a larger carbon footprint than more efficient, technology-driven, conventional methods," she said.

To read the full paper, click here. 

For more stories, go to www.meatingplace.com.