Save the Economy: Start Dieting
Please don't say go vegetarian, please don't say go vegetarian, please don't....ah crap!!!! (More on this later).
According to ecologists, an energy crisis could be averted if Americans cut their calories.
David Pimentel of Cornell University and colleagues estimate that energy demands could easily be halved, which could stave off the prospect of further rises in the costs of fuel. Here are some of their conclusions based on their research;
- The average American consumes about 3747 kcal per day compared to the 2000 to 2500 kcal per day recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration.
- The 3747 kcal per day figure does not include any junk food consumed - which Pimentel estimates is about an additional 1/3.
- Producing those daily calories uses the equivalent to 2000 litres of oil per person each year. That accounts for about 19% of US total energy use.
- Using data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Pimentel estimates that half of the energy used to make food in the US is spent making animal products - meat, dairy and eggs.
- If Americans maintained their 3747 kcals per day, but switched to a vegetarian diet, the fossil fuel energy required to generate that diet would be cut by one third.
- If people cut out 80% of the junk food they consume, this would reduce caloric consumption by 30%. This could have a substantial impact on energy consumption as junk food is energetically expensive to produce.
- Better farming practices such as; using more efficient light bulbs, less fertilizer and pesticides and more manual labor would also have a positive impact.
- Producing food locally would cut the energy expended transporting it by half.
What we can (are willing to) do
I think some of these proposals are sensible and some of them are...ambitious (euphemisms - love 'em!). I think reducing our carbon footprint is at the forefront of our minds and there are some smaller-scale, realistic steps we can take to help the economy/environment and our health.
I love the idea of trying to eat locally as much as possible. Also, I think many of us could benefit from cutting back on the junk - with the energy cost adding extra incentive. (Cheetos: bad for your arteries AND your planet).
As for eschewing meat... I think I'll just change to fluorescent light bulbs. But seriously, the unrelenting omnivore can be more environmentally friendly by eating locally raised meat, meat with less packaging or simply by cutting back a little.
I think having the awareness that our dietary choices affect our economy and our planet in addition to our own personal health is crucial. If everybody made small changes, we can collectively make a big difference.
Disclaimer: I am not against Vegetarianism. My quips were meant to be light-hearted and more of a sardonic commentary on my own resistance to change. Also, the article focused on the U.S. but to be clear, this is a problem in most of the Westernized world.
42 Comments
Add Your Comment
ADVERTISING
New
- FROM DIET BLOG
- On-Off Fasting: Does It Work?
- 400 Calorie Fix
- 5 Factor World Diet
- Quick Giveaway: Powerhouse Weight Loss Game
- FORUM
- Low Carb Atkins Diet- Tips to Cut the Carbs.
- How Can I Gain a Healthy Weight and Keep it?
- How Do I Eat Healthy at University?
- Starving Myself and Exercising, But Not Losing an Ounce?
Categories
| Body Image Celebrities Diet Pills Diets Exercise |
Fast Food Funny Stuff Success Stories Teens and Kids Tips and Tools |
RSS Feed
Follow @DietBlog on Twitter
Great post. I must mention the diet foods industry, too. Those products cost a lot of money. If we'd just eat right, we could save so much...
ReplyHow about at least cutting back on meat, especially very cheap meat, that is not only produced in ways that use a lot of energy, but also with practices that are very cruel to animals. Eat meat 2-3 times a week but then choose meat that is local (also better for the animals) and organic. It is not only healthier and greener but also tastes better.
ReplyBut eating 1$ burgers every day is harmful to everyone (except maybe the pockets of the fast-food chains).
Lauren, I agree. In general eat food that is little or not processed at all, like fruit, vegetables ect. Better for everyone.
ReplySo now there using the environment as a reason for people to lose weight. If people aren't going to lose weight to better their health then I don't think environmental woes will sway them.
On a side note hopefully with transportation prices so high locally grown and raised products will become more widely available.
ReplyOkay, I guarantee I won't be eating 3747 Calories in a day any time soon. :o
Seriously, even in marathon training it wasn't quite that high.
Maybe during next marathon cycle with breastfeeding added in, I might get close to that.
Where did that figure come from? Wouldn't we have even more morbidly obese people around if that's common?
ReplyI noticed that too Heather, and if that number is correct 3747 kcal not including junk food then America is definitely not as sedentary as we thought. I think the number was based on a FAO report that was pretty flawed in the way it came to it's results.
ReplyIf it's the FAO data, it's the total food entering the food supply, not what is actually consumed (just what is available to consume). The Economic Research Service (ERS) of the USDA takes the FAO data one step further and accounts for waste (plate, scraps, kitchen and spoilage) and once that waste is accounted for, says we actually consume, on average, 2,739-calories, with those calories coming from:
dairy, 285-calories (10.4%);
Replyfruits 80-calories (2.9%);
vegetables, including potatoes and legumes, 133-calories (4.9%);
nuts, including peanuts, 90-calories (3.3%);
eggs 27-calories (1%);
meats, poultry and fish combined provide 374-calories (13.6%)
red meats, including beef, pork, lamb and veal, 248-calories (9%);
poultry, including chicken and turkey, 110-calories (4%)
fish 16-calories (less than 1%)
grains, 634-calories (23%)
whole grains, 32-calories (1.1%)
refined grains, 602-calories (21.9%)
added sugars, 502-calories (18.3%)
added fats, 650-calories (23.7%)
vegetable oils (mostly soybean), 276-calories (10%)
shortening, 238-calories (8.7%)
margarine, 40-calories (1.5%)
This is interesting.
Seems to me that the way food is marketed and what we expected could also be changed -- so much food goes to waste in the supermarkets. Think of all the meat and poultry that doesn't get bought. It can't be re-frozen. What do they do with it? I know our supermarket isn't feeding it to pigs. Take a look at the dumpsters behind any supermarket, and you'll see a lot of food waste, and oil and other resources went into creating that food.
But if supermarkets cut down their buying, it might mean we as consumers could not buy what we want when we want it. We might have to order ahead or, gasp, make do with something else.
I also think there's less waste when people shop for a day or so at a time at local markets, rather than buying a month's worth of food at a time.
ReplyThat breakdown is incredibly depressing, especially when you factor in that there are some people who do actually eat a proper diet (not "the" proper diet because I doubt that actually exists). It makes you realize how poorly some people do eat.
ReplyLove the post! I am in total agreement. We manufacture twice the calories we need, and Americans eat way too much meat (generally).
ReplyI don't think Americans eat too much meat; the problem is refined grains,fatty oils and too much unnecessary sugar.
ReplyWow! It's nice to hear that David is still stirring the pot... He's been active for years.
The article is here but it costs $32.
The New Scientist had an article about vegetarianism and global warming here, complete with a looong set of comments.
One of my friends - a young researcher who grew up in Turkey - constantly beats me up about my elitist attitude against junk food. She claims that junk food is great because it makes food affordable. She'd be asking here what the effect on the cost of food would be were David's ideas actually implemented (whatever that means...)
ReplyI have to agree with Nina, cutting back on your meat consumption can have very positive impacts on your diet, wallet, the enviroment and on the economy. Meat takes so much energy to produce, process, and transport. With millions of people consuming it three times a day that's alot of energy gone to waste when you could have had beans and rice which costs alot less to make. Not to mention all the local farmers who's vegetables you would be eating (If you buy locally that is)
Not only does it help the economy, You help the enviroment because cows are the number one producers of methane gas which is a significant factor in global warming. AND if the demand for meat would go down companies wouldn't practice imhumane factory farming practices to produce meat like they do. There just wouldn't be profit in it.
Don't get me wrong. I love me some steak, but going parttime vegetarian has SOOOOOOO many benefits and only one downside.(That downside is you don't get to eat meat everyday which can be a positive because when you go a week without meat it tastes soo much better.)
Just a few thoughts.
Reply3747 kcal?!?! After losing weight, I looked up how many calories I ought to be eating to maintain, and I was flabbergasted! The number I was given wasn't even half of that, and the recommended daily menus seemed HUGE. I'm talking way too much food to eat in a single day.
I should say, though, that I'm a vegetarian, so maybe eating less calorie dense foods had something to do with it?
ReplyThe more vegetarian you can become, the better - both for you and the planet.
DID YOU KNOW...
That at least 260 million acres of US forests have been cleared for cropland to fuel the meat-centered diet and that 85% of US topsoil loss is directly attributable to the raising of livestock?!
ALSO....
More than 50% of the water used in the US is used for livestock production and that 2,500 GALLONS OF WATER ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE JUST 1 POUND OF MEAT?!
Pretty crazy! How about eating more fruits and vegetables. Not a bad idea, eh?!
ReplyI find this an interesting topic, because junk food is something I'd never associate with energy consumption. I guess it could add extra incentive to cut back on the junk knowing that it uses up large amounts of energy.
ReplyI'm the average broke college student and I'll admit that I have been eating a little less to save $$. But that would be the micro-aspect of this concept I guess. Anyhow, if junk food costs more energy to produce, why does eating healthy cost more? This baffles me.
Replytwo words. government subsidies to grow animal feed. if there weren't any, a burger would be more like $20+.
ReplyNot true...I buy 100% grass-fed beef from a local farmer - not one input to feed her cows - and it's nowhere near that expensive....not even close! In fact, I pay LESS per pound for all cuts of meat than in the grocery store.
ReplyStop trying to convert people away from meat. Not everyone wants to be a sickly pale vegetarian hippie.
ReplyI am going to eat 3 steaks tonight.
I find it rather humorous that most people view vegetarians and vegans as pale, sickly, non-shaving hippie looking. Maybe in the 60's that was the norm, but times have changed and you would be surprised at all the well-built athletes that are non-meat eaters.
ReplyEnjoy your steaks for dinner. I'll be having homemade tuscan bean soup. Yummy!!!!!
ReplyRight. Check out this sickly, pale vegan hippie:
http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/resources/2007/09/PrinceFielder.jpg
ReplyHere is another sickly vegetarian:
http://www.tonyskansascity.com/tonyskansascity/tonyg88.jpg
ReplyI am a world team athlete for Canada, and I don't eat any meat except organic spring lamb once or twice per year. I get my protein from beans, nuts and nut butters, pasta, tofu, hummus, and fish 2x per week (I love wild salmon :)
I also don't eat dairy (partly because its unnatural and partly because I'm lactose intolerant as are most people, except for scandinavians). I get calcium from salmon, sardines, broccoli, spinach, hummus, and almond milk
Converting to this way of eating (organic and mostly vegetarian) actually saved money on my grocery bill... and I never have to weigh myself now, my body found its own weight zone and stays there...
Most world and olympic athletes that I know also don't eat meat or dairy...
ReplyIt's the industrial farming system that is the real problem. Like Mike said, packaged foods and long-distance travel are BIG energy wasters.
Eat fresh, eat local. I think that's something that both vegetarians and carnivores can agree on.
ReplyWe decided to eat only local or, on occasion, non-local but humanely and organically-raised meat and poultry. Yes, it's more expensive. So we are encouraged to eat less of it, and to use every bit of it. All around a good thing.
Meat perhaps ought to also be thought of seasonally. It makes most sense for farmers to slaughter animals in the fall, so as to save on feed (spring and summer they can graze) -- therefore fall and winter are the best times to eat meat. In the spring, when there are a lot of fresh summer vegetables, eggs, and dairy around, eat those.
ReplySorry, but your comment through me off for a moment. The point about the right time to buy meat was a clashed with my farming knowledge. That's because of snow isn't it? In Australia it's the other way round - the grazing time is winter and spring because of the rain, it's to dry in summer.
ReplyHA HA HA!!!! A vegetarian victory!! Woooooohoo!
ReplyGreat post, Mike! I usually eat vegetarian only because it's so much cheaper to eat that way. I eat eggs and dairy because they are fairly cheap sources of complete protein, but we try to buy meat sparingly and I try to be really frugal with it. Instead of throwing out a ham bone with some meat still on it, I cook it up in a pot of water and make split pea soup with it.
I don't eat much junk food, but most processed food in general is kind of a ripoff. Just the other day, I was reading about Dr. Weil's "Weil Bars" that cost $3 a PIECE. Sure, they were healthy enough, but for that price you could have a piece of fruit and a handful of nuts and been better off nutritionally. The whole diet-food industry, as was mentioned before, is completely unnecessary. Why do we buy things like EggBeaters when it's probably a lot cheaper to separate your own eggs or Sugar Free pre-brewed tea when you can buy tea and make your own?
It's too bad that we can't go back to the days when most families kept chickens for eggs/meat and a cow for milk and raised a steer or a hog every year for their meat and grew most of their own produce in gardens. That would be so great...lots of work, but I bet it would all taste so GOOD!
ReplyOkay - so you cut all of that out - what happens to the economy when there is no longer a meat industry, or a the food processing plants and the truckers etc..
ReplyI 'm not saying I am for all that stuff - but it sure goes a long way in providing a living for many - and with out it, how do they pay their bills?
A concern, yes, but how much of what we pay actually goes to those people who you mentioned. My bet--admittedly, it is a mindset that does not like unregulated capitalism--is that most of it goes to middlemen (grocery stores, wholesalers, etc.) and wherever it ends up, it mostly goes to corporate types.
Whenever one industry falls, another one picks up. If we focused on buying local produce and avoiding utter crap in the disguise of junk food, so much of the land given over to agribusiness that grows mountains of soybeans and corn could be given to sustainable livestock production and farming produce. And if we were not buying cheap junk food, we could pay more quality in other things, thus sustaining a great deal more individuals.
ReplySorry! I always hate when people make claims that relate to their own region and don't tell us where they live, and here I did it.
I'm in the Northeast United States -- pretty seasonal, with cold winters and warm summers.
ReplyI have several points to make here.
I live in a region that produces a lot of food. I have family and friends who are in the business of raising beef cattle for export to the US, a very lucrative business. They see enough profit from that supposedly trade to survive the droughts, but only just. If this movement gathers more momentum they would lose the American market but in the long run would probably be better off.
During my teen years I, like everyone else in my region, worked harvests during the school holidays. Organic farms had the best working conditions and the best pay. This observation carries all over the world, cheep food is made cheep at the expense of everything else, from the environment to the workers.
It is important for the human race to eat some meet. It's not necessary for individuals, vegetarianism is perfectly healthy, but for humanity as a hole meet is needed. But nowhere near the amount that is currently eaten. Three times a week is enough.
Junk food is so energy wasteful it's ridiculous. If we continue eating it at the rate that we currently are, we will not survive.
ReplyYou don't make clear why it's important that humanity as a whole eat some meat. Economically? Because there are some areas of the world where growing produce/wheat isn't feasible? If it's perfectly healthy to be a vegetarian, why would humanity as a whole need "some meat?" Just curious...
ReplyI think there's a semantics problem here.
I think when Gabrielle says "humanity as a hole" (sic) she means humans as a species are often nutritionally dependent on meat. We've evolved to eat meat, which is an important source of certain amino acids, proteins and fats. Without meat, we never would have been able to develop our large brains which we used to develop more sustainable food technologies.
While it is not necessarily true that we are still completely dependent on it if we have access to a wide variety of vegetable foods, it is still fairly reasonable to say that we still need meat.
Though I'm as confused as you, NtB. When Gabrielle says "humanity as a whole", it seems she is referring to humans as a culture, the human race, human society, mankind, the global village while making exceptions for individuals vegetarians as if they are not part of the same species.
Many cultures do depend on meat, and there has been a history of animal hunting or herding in many cultures for millenia. Especially in areas which cannot support many plant crops for human consumption, this meat is vital to the survival of those people.
However, there are cultures that have embraced vegetarianism, such as Buddhists and the Brahmin of India.
Making exceptions for individual vegetarians, as if these rules of human survival do not apply, muddles the issue. Either humans need meat, or they do not "need" meat, but are often dependent on it.
Ok, I really need to go blog about this more extensively...
ReplyAn article on the BBC News website makes a economic point for local produce:
They exist in a landscape of increasing disorder caused by growing populations and a degrading environment.
Trucks carrying away the produce along bumpy rural roads sometimes pass food aid trucks coming in the opposite direction. For example, some $45m (£22.5m) of food aid came from the US to Kenya last year.
Even before its sea voyage, the calorific value of US wheat is only twice the amount of calories expended to produce it. Compare this with cassava production in Tanzania where 23 times the calorific value is gained for each calorie of human energy input.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7553958.stm
ReplyJunk food is cheaper because of the quality of food they use. Of course keeping a cow healthy (which includes space for them to move, not just stand) is more expensive then cramming them into a small space and giving them a lot of meds.
As for the posts of not converting people to become vegetarians, that was exactly my point. Even just cutting back on some meat can do a lot of good, that includes sizes of meals. I live in Europe and when having been in the United States am always baffled at the sizes of meals. A starter has the size of a main meal in Europe (or is even bigger). Those sizes come with a cost, for your health and the environment.
ReplyAnother bs study. It seems to have fueled the anti meat Nazis.
It doesn't take much of a clue that dieting has no relation on the economy other than making any health industry into a monopoly.
There's a lot of "healthy" things I've had to cut because of the "economy". Apples and health clubs for one.
ReplyCutting back on our quality if life isn't going to help the economy or anyone for that matter. And this is coming from a miserly, who's not even much a meat person.
Efforts purported by studies like these are largely misplaced. You can't and shouldn't expect anyone to give up a pleasure as basic as food for the economy if they can help it.
ReplyBack to the natural law.
Everything that out of nature law would get seriously impact.
In this topic if you want to cut 80% junk food consumed, it is same to make new problems for junk food sellers, producers and raw material supplier.
As long as proved that junk food helps many peoples.
I think diet is not need to influenced another sector.
ReplyHow do they know what the average American consumes, and might I add that I will never go vegetarian.
Reply