Sin 1

Alternatives, Solutions, and Results:

The Effects of the Food System on Climate Change

Michael Sin

UEP 101

Professor Matsuoka
 Sin 2

December 14, 2007

There are no smokestacks or oil rigs attached to the roofs of most

McDonald's restaurants, so at first, it seemed like an unusual venue to

protest global warming, world hunger, and war. But sheep farmer and

Roquefort fromage maker José Bové thought otherwise; he had done his

research and McDonald's was the natural villain, guilty of environmental

degradation, genetically-modified corn, and hormone-injected beef. After

handing out "résistance a la MacDomination" fliers one summer afternoon in

1999, the Millau populist, protesting "U.S. domination of the world" and the

spread of malbouffe – bad food – drove his tractor straight into a soon-to-be-

opened franchise.1, 2, 3

Bové's pièce de résistance resonated with many Gauls, and soon he

found followers. The French liked how Bové brought attention to the dangers

of globalizing food sources, how he brought demands to the headquarters of

McDonald's, and after having garnered the requisite 500 sponsorships of

elected officials, how he ran for president in the landmark 2007 elections. He

lost, but more important, Bové divulged the enormous power, influence, and

reach of large multinational corporations, capable of decimating resources,

harming health, and changing culture; and he proved that any widespread

progress or profound change will require corporate cooperation. McDonald's

France shortly revamped its operating structure, sourcing all its ingredients –

except cheddar – locally. 4

 Sin 3

The crux of Bové's findings is significant especially in today's crisis

over climate change; tackling food's contribution, in particular, will require

dedication from the private sector. Currently, food production, food

distribution, and food consumption all play an enormous role in affecting

climate, as the world population still relies on shortsighted, unsustainable,

and fossil fuel intensive practices. Sixteen percent of the gases known to

enhance the greenhouse effect – "greenhouse gases" – can be traced back to

the food system. 5

The majority of these greenhouse gas emitters – factory

farms, slaughterhouses, goods-movement vehicles – are run by large,

profitable corporations that have the capacity to singlehandedly make a

difference.

Unfortunately the direction of U.S. Food and Energy Security Acts –

otherwise known as the farm bills – of past, as well as other food policies, has

proven ineffective and feeble at tackling big agriculture's contribution to

climate change. Current policies make market conditions too difficult for

green alternatives to succeed, favoring nutrient-depleting, water-polluting,

and synthetic nitrogen-intensive monoculture instead. 6 Agribusiness welfare

has led to overproduction of subsidized crops like soybean, which is sold at

prices lower than the cost of production, ultimately to be used as cattle feed;

corn, which is turned into high-fructose corn syrup, the staple of American

junk food; and cotton, which is subsidized such that African cotton growers

cannot compete. 7
Much of this overproduction is exported – some dumped in

the name of charity, others in the name of free trade – preventing

 Sin 4

developing markets abroad from being self-sufficient.8 Meanwhile, U.S.

farmers continue to lose money, having their prices determined by the

Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which reflect the interests of business and

have no correlation with the actual prices needed to sustain farming. 9

These unhelpful, asinine conditions, combined with the insistence on

pleasing the lowest common denominator, make climate progress difficult.

They encourage heavy fossil fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions,

and the consequent health affects. Current food policies are completely

unsustainable both environmentally and economically – they enable the sort

of farming that requires constant chemical input and constant subsidy input.

Without either of these aids, the food system would collapse.

Fixing the food system requires radical rethink. People will need to

rethink the true cost of goods at the store, rethink subsidies, rethink

"commodity" crops, rethink technology, and rethink food aid. Tackling food's

impact on climate will have enormous implications; it will touch upon food

access, environmental justice, social mobility, labor, food quality, culture and

tradition, globalization, national security, and standard of living. Rethinking

the food system will require education, reeducation, the dismantling of false

dichotomies and misinformation, compromise, and time.

In this paper, I will assess the roles the food system – food production,

distribution, and consumption – plays in climate change. I will analyze what

is entailed in the mitigation of these impacts, what compromises and

benefits should people expect to make and receive, and to what extent will
 Sin 5

the public find these actions acceptable. Suggestions will be made in the

context that food systems should do its share in contributing to a global "B1"

emissions scenario (less than 2°C warming), so greenhouse gases in the food

sector should be reduced by 80%, paralleling the recommended overall

global greenhouse gas reduction of 80%. 10, 11

Ultimately, food is in a unique position, compared to other targets of

climate scientists, policymakers, and activists. Food is a basic necessity that

must be dealt with carefully, and it is a sensitive and highly political topic,

dealing with freedom of choice, the economic health of certain regions, and

the wellbeing of developing nations. However, it is unequivocal that in its

current state, people are still starving, people are still getting sick from food,

and the planet is still in peril. Food distribution inequity, not a scarcity in food

quantity, contributes to poverty; and movements toward sustainability, like

developing a more localized, self-sufficient food supply with the aid of the

private sector, will not only reduce global warming, but also improve food

distribution and reduce poverty.

Findings: The Current State of Destruction

The single largest anthropogenic contributor to climate change is

energy use, yet the current food system is highly energy inefficient. 12
As

much of the world can only rely on fossil fuels, minimizing this inefficiency

and excessive consumption is key.

The earliest – and smallest – input of fossil fuel energy in the food

system is during food production. Crops are grown; cows are fed; gas-
 Sin 6

guzzling tractors, pick-up trucks, and other equipment are used; and

fertilizers are manufactured. But agricultural machinery, and therefore fossil

fuel energy use, is ultimately responsible for only 6.4 percent of food

production greenhouse gases, paling in comparison to enteric fermentation,

manure management, rice cultivation, and soil management.13 And because

crops sequester carbon through photosynthesis, food production's net effect

on climate is relatively minimal, at least in terms of energy use. Organic

farming methods and more fuel-efficient machinery, such as hybrid or clean

diesel pickup trucks, already exist to mitigate these however small impacts,

and they can be further implemented through incentives, tax credits, and

subsidies. 14

Food manufacturing – processing and packaging – plays a much larger

role in energy consumption: 4.7% of the U.S. total.15 A breakfast cereal with

a mere 3,600 "calories" per kilogram of food energy takes 15,675 kcal/kg of

fossil fuel energy to process and prepare, and a "one-calorie" can of diet

soda takes 2,200 kcal to produce. 16, 17

In a 455g can of sweet corn, 43

percent of fossil fuel energy used is solely for processing and packaging.18

Researchers estimate that it takes anywhere from 7.3 to 10 units of fossil

fuel energy to produce just one unit of food in the U.S.19 Further

compounding the problem is the amount of cardboard used; a third of

packaging expenses go to cardboard boxes used for shipping processed

goods.20 In addition to the fossil fuel energy consumed during cardboard

manufacturing, there is the loss of carbon sequestration from deforestation,

 Sin 7

which also impacts many communities in developing countries where logging

takes place. Corporations like Tesco have started to use alternatives, such as

a closed-loop system of washable, returnable plastic trays. 21

Food waste

during food processing and packaging, conversely, continues to be an

unsolved problem: millions of pounds of edible food never make it to shelves,

after being intercepted in the "grading" process.

Food transportation, distribution, and retail account for 5%, 11%, and

10% of fossil fuel energy usage, respectively, for a 455g can of sweet corn. 22

Combined, this is smaller than food manufacturing, but it still represents a

significant input. In Los Angeles, the goods-movement industry, which

transports food, uses inefficient, heavily-polluting trucks that pose a health

hazard and environmental justice issue to underrepresented low-income

minority communities, in addition to contributing to climate change.

Retrofitting or purchasing trucks with catalytic converters and particulate

filters, not only reduces criteria air pollutants, but it may also minimize

climate change, as "black carbon" has recently been discovered to "[absorb]

sunlight, [convert] it into infrared (heat) radiation, and [emit] that heat

radiation to the air around it." 23, 24

Food waste is also a concern with food

retail; according to a USDA Economic Research Service study, "5,449 million

pounds of edible food, or 2% of the total edible food supply, were lost at the

retail stage", in part because of overproduction, which created a supply of

perishable items greater than demand. 25

If just ten percent of the 96 billion

pounds of edible food lost were recovered, there would be enough to feed
 Sin 8

the entire population of New York City.26 In a segment on consumerism, Tess

Vigeland of American Public Media's Marketplace described her day with

"freegans", salvaging good food from the trash bins behind a popular New

York supermarket:

"[We] gathered cartons of not-yet-expired eggs, boxes of butter,

plastic-wrapped broccoli and celery. From outside the celery looked
wilted, but removed from its packaging, just one stalk had gone bad.
The rest was perfectly edible ... These stores are doing something that
we all do on a much smaller scale every time we clean out the
refrigerator or the pantry." 27

The Society of St. Andrew, a hunger relief charity, rescues 20 million pounds

of fresh retail waste each year and serves meals for the poor and homeless.
28

Food preparation and consumption also play a role in climate change:

15% of the fossil fuel input for a 455g can of sweet corn goes into

preparation and consumption. 29

Much of these effects are through consumer

choice; the Union of Concerned Scientists lists food as one of "the most

harmful consumer activities", behind cars and light trucks, but ahead of

"home heating, hot water and air conditioning", "household lighting and

appliances", "home construction", and "household water and sewage", and

they rank buying organic produce as one of the most effective climatic

choices. 30
According to a study done by the School of Natural Resources and

Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, a 3600 calorie diet, of which

1000 calories are from animals, requires 35,000 kcal of fossil fuel energy in

contrast to a 3600 calorie vegetarian diet, which requires 18,000 kcal of

fossil fuel energy. 31

Indeed, if the American population happened to switch
 Sin 9

to an all-vegetarian diet, food-related energy consumption would be reduced

by nearly half. The energy input for that 455g can of sweet corn is a mere

3,605 kcal; producing the equivalent amount of beef requires 13,497 kcal.
32
Interestingly, food preparation at home consumes more fossil fuel energy

than food production at a barn, so researchers in the European Union are

identifying ways for households to shop, cook, and deal with kitchen waste

more sustainably. 33

American food production, processing, packaging, transportation,

distribution, retailing, preparation, and consumption altogether make up

twenty percent - an enormous chunk - of the (mostly) fossil fuel energy used

in the United States. 34

At the same time, the amount of food produced –

enough for 3800 kcal per capita per day – is enormous as well (and strikingly

at odds with the 9.7 percent of "food insecure" U.S. households).35 The

solution, then, seems clear: reducing subsidies to reduce overproduction will

minimize waste, reduce energy consumption, and ultimately reduce

greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to energy and fossil fuels, livestock, too, plays a significant

role in climate change. Animal agriculture accounts for 18 percent of global

greenhouse gases – greater than the world's cars and light trucks combined

– and 6 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases, as a result of both animal manure

and deforestation.36 Animal manure, especially that from factory-farmed

cattle, is rich in methane – a potent greenhouse gas 23 times more potent

than carbon dioxide – because of the anaerobic conditions of waste lagoons.

 Sin 10

37
Deforestation is an equally common concern; over 70 percent of the

Amazon rainforest has been cleared for pasture, and even more land has

been cleared to grow the feed needed for livestock.38 In the U.S. 60 percent

of agriculture in the Missouri-Mississippi basin is reserved for feed

production, as opposed to food for local human consumption.39 These

"program crops" not only harm the land and water – they displace a

traditional way of life, the small family farm; limit the access to fresh fruits

and vegetables; expose bodies to dangerous pesticides and fertilizers; and

make conditions difficult for social mobility.

Direct cattle belching and flatulence also contribute to climate change.

In New Zealand, "over 50 percent of [their] greenhouse gas emissions arise

from methane released by enteric fermentation." Reduced livestock

emissions are critical there in order to meet Kyoto Protocol goals, as National

Geographic's John Roach notes: "Although livestock are exempt from a tax

plan ... to help meet its targets under the protocol, the agriculture industry is

required to fund research on ways to reduce agriculture methane emissions."

40
Similarly, in the San Joaquin Valley, California, farmers are voluntarily

reducing animal greenhouse gas emissions through fish oil additives and

high-grade alfalfa grass, seeing that animals "that put their energies into

making gas are less efficient at producing milk and meat." 41

In Australia,

scientists have isolated the highly promising bacteria in kangaroos that

allows them to eat the same grass and plants as cattle without having the

same flatulence. 42
 Sin 11

What are the Alternatives and Solutions?

Mending the current food system's flaws – inefficient energy use,

overproduction, deforestation, waste, pollution – requires a multitude of

approaches. It requires both sophisticated, large-scale policymaking and

new, creative, smaller-scale alternatives. Community Supported Agriculture

(CSA) and the Village Homes subdivision reflect the latter approach, and they

are two idealistic models to live by and learn from, which ultimately inspires

policy.

Community Supported Agriculture aims to improve the quality of food,

preserve the environment, reduce food miles, and lower the cost of

production. The United States Department of Agriculture defines a CSA as "a

community of individuals who pledge support to a farm operation so that the

farmland becomes, either legally or spiritually, the community's farm, with

the growers and consumers providing mutual support and sharing the risks

and benefits of food production." 43

Members contribute financial shares to

the operation, and in return, they typically receive a weekly delivery of

vegetables from the farm. Village Homes in Davis, CA, also explores the

possibilities of small-scale, community-based, sustainable farming. The 70-

acre marvel of planning has vegetable gardens and orchards capable of

producing one-quarter of all food consumed by residents.

The U.S. Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 – the farm bill – is the

opportunity to expand on and implement these sustainable ideas. The farm

 Sin 12

bill, which "sets the nation's agricultural agenda every five years", is what

will ultimately decide the food system's impact on climate change. 44

The bill

"has consequences for the environment, international trade, food safety,

rural development and food assistance for poor families", and this year,

there has been an unusually large amount of interest. 45

The farm bill must address the current market conditions that prevent

green alternatives from competing. The billions of dollars spent on "safety

nets" for commodity crops – the sort of crops responsible for obesity in the

U.S. and starvation elsewhere – need to be substantially reduced, replaced

with incentives that facilitate the transition to organic agriculture.

Farmers, who cannot set their own prices and are at the mercy of the

Chicago Mercantile Exchange, need a price floor that more accurately

reflects the true costs of production. Factory farm corporations have saved

$35 billion – at the expense of tax payers – as a result of this below-cost

feed. 46
The government needs to impose higher product standards and

tougher environmental regulations so that the costs of doing business for a

large corporation are closer to that of a quality-conscious small farmer. There

should be hard caps on the amount of subsidies that each corporation gets;

currently the biggest 10 percent get 72 percent of the money. 47

Trade-distorting subsidies that encourage overproduction should be

eliminated. There needs to be a transition from the traditional loan-

deficiency, counter-cyclical, and direct payments to conservation reserve

payments, which do not encourage overproduction. There should be financial

 Sin 13

assistance and programs that allow farmers to market their own food,

including farmers' market and farm-to-school lunch programs.

Within the farm bill, there needs to be language that "includes

greenhouse gases ... as a resource of concern under air quality" and requires

"environmental tradeoffs [to be] assessed when evaluating applications for

cost-share or incentive payments," as recommended by the World Resources

Institute. 48
Acknowledging greenhouse gases and global warming is a crucial

first step to any climate progress.

The Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest advocates

increased funding for the "Rural Energy for America Program" (REAP), which

improves the Farm Bill Section 9006 Renewable Energy/Energy Efficiency

grant and loan guarantee program, and improves the existing Section 9005

Energy Technical Assistance program, to "teach rural America effectively". 49

In the past, grants have been used for wind, biomass, anaerobic digester,

energy efficiency, hybrid projects, solar, geothermal, and hydrogen, in

decreasing order. Corn ethanol is not included in the program, and REAP

proponents claim a reduction of 75 million metric tons of CO2, which directly

mitigates some of food's effects on climate. 50

In addition, there needs to be Country of Origin and genetically

modified organism (GMO) labeling, so that consumers can accurately factor

in food miles and crop sustainability into their buying decision.

Results
 Sin 14

In an article subtly titled "Organic Farmers Face Ruin as Rich Nations

Agonise Over Food Miles," Jonathan Clayton of the London Times discusses

food miles – and consequently the carbon dioxide emissions from shipping

produce by air – in light of poor African organic farmers who benefit from

selling to developed nations. 51

He goes on to establish a dichotomy – that is,

nations must choose between reducing either emissions or poverty, but not

both.

Of course, that cannot be further from the truth. Aside from Clayton

ignoring that growing food for your own fellow countrymen and women – as

opposed to Mother England – might possibly be even more effective at

squelching poverty, mitigating climate change through changes in the food

system and eliminating poverty go hand in hand. Movements toward

sustainability, like developing a more localized, self-sufficient food supply,

will not only reduce global warming, but also improve food distribution and

reduce poverty. Minimizing climate change enables farmers in hot, dry,

developing nations to continue farming and eating.

Fixing the food system requires radical rethink – in the form of a farm

bill. Shortsighted, unsustainable, and fossil fuel intensive practices must be

abandoned, and the enormous power, influence, and reach of large

multinational corporations must be kept in check. At the same time, any

widespread progress or profound change will require the cooperation of the

private sector, as well as the contributions of labor, community, government,

and activists.
 Sin 15

Indeed, as of Monday, December 10, 2007, José Bové is on a grève de

la faim – a hunger strike – demanding the passage of a one-year ban on

genetically modified crops.

Notes

1. Godard
2. Williams
3. BBC News Player
4. Tagliabue
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Energy."
6. Pollan
7. Grashaw
8. Conan
9. Ibid.
10. United Nations
11. Intergovernmental
12. Wikipedia
13. Heller, 27.
14. Krolicki
15. Heller, 31.
16. Heller, 31.
17. Ibid
18. Heller, 32.
19. Heller, 44.
20. Heller, 31.
21. Answers.com
22. Heller, 32.
23. Green Car Congress
24. THE Impact Project
 Sin 16

25. Heller, 32.

26. Heller, 38.
27. Vigeland
28. Heller, 38.
29. Heller, 32.
30. Clay
31. Heller, 36.
32. Ibid.
33. Heller, 49.
34. Food and Water Watch. Climate Change
35. Heller, 31.
36. Castel
37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Agriculture."
38. Galst
39. Ibid.
40. Roach
41. Owen
42. Chipperfield
43. United States Department of Agriculture
44. Gaouette
45. Ibid.
46. Starmer
47. Conan
48. World Resources Institute
49. Environmental Law & Policy Center, Senate's
50. Environmental Law & Policy Center, Mitigating
51. Clayton
 Sin 17

Works Cited

Answers.com. "reuse: Information and Much More." Wikipedia. 2007

http://www.answers.com/topic/reuse

BBC News Player. "Bove joins French poll race." Video. BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6320000/newsid_6323200/632
3205.stm?
bw=nb&mp=rm&news=1&ms3=4&ms_javascript=true&bbcws=2

Castel, V., et al. "Livestock's long shadow: Environmental issues and

options." Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. November
2006.
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.ht
m

Chipperfield, Mark. "Kangaroo bacteria could fight climate change." London:

Telegraph.co.uk, December 6, 2007.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?
xml=/earth/2007/12/06/eakanga106.xml
 Sin 18

Clay and Wattles. "Priorities." Sustainable Living in Northern Canada. March

8, 2006 http://www.duq.ca/?p=19

Clayton, Jonathan. "Organic farmers face ruin as rich nations agonise over
food miles." London: Times Online, August 2, 2007.

Conan, Neil. "Senate to Vote on Farm Subsidies." Talk of the Nation . NPR,
December 11, 2007 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?
storyId=17134866

Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest. Senate's Rural Energy for
America Program. http://www.farmenergy.org/newsitem.php?
item_id=346

Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest. Mitigating Global

Warming Through the Farm Bill, Measuring the Potential Greenhouse
Gas Savings of the Farm Bill's Energy Title Programs. October 2007.

Food and Water Watch. Climate Change: It's What's for Dinner, Fact Sheet.
Washington, DC: Food& Water Watch, November 2007.

Galst, Liz. "Earth to PETA; Meat is not the No. 1 cause of global warming."
Salon.com. October 22, 2007.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/22/peta/

Gaouette, Nicole. "Farm bill affects more than just land and furrows." Los
Angeles: Los Angeles Times, December 2, 2007.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-
farmqa2dec02,1,3158710.story?coll=la-news-a_section

Grashaw, Ashley. "NPR: Farmers on the Hill." NPR. December 11, 2007.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2007/12/farmers_on_the_hill.html

Green Car Congress. "Black Carbon May be Second-Most Significant Global

Warming Pollutant After Carbon Dioxide; Alters Picture of Diesel Engine
Benefits" November 5, 2007.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/black-carbon-ma.html

Godard, Jean-Marie. "Thousands in Paris Protest Bush's Visit."

CommonDreams.org. May 26, 2002.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0526-01.htm

Heller, Martin C., and Gregory A. Keoleian. "Life Cycle-Based Sustainability

Indicators for Assessment of the U.S. Food System." School of Natural
Resources and Environment. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor:
December 6, 2000
 Sin 19

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Climate Change 2001:

Synthesis report." Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK: 2001.

Krolicki, Kevin. "Chevy Hybrid SUV wins 'Green Car of Year'"

Boston.com/Reuters. November 15, 2007.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/11/15/chevy_tahoe_hybr
id_wins_green_car_of_year/

Owen, James. "California Cows Fail Latest Emissions Test." National

Geographic. August 16, 2005.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0816_050816_cowp
ollution.html

Pollan, Michael. "Weed It and Reap." New York Times. November 4, 2007,
sec. O. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/opinion/04pollan.html?
_r=1&oref=slogin

Roach, John. "New Zealand Tries to Cap Gaseous Sheep Burps." National
Geographic. May 13, 2002.
htp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/0509_020509_belch.
html

Starmer, Elanor, et al. "Feeding at the Trough: Industrial Livestock Firms

Saved $35 Billion from Low Feed Prices," GDAE Policy Brief No. 07-03.
Tufts University. December 2007.
http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/PB07-
03FeedingAtTroughDec07.pdf

Tagliabue, John. "A McDonald's Ally in Paris." New York Times . June 20,
2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/business/worldbusiness/20burger.
html?_r=1&oref=slogin

THE Impact Project. "Climate Change." Moving Forward – Conference 2007 .

Carson, California. December 1, 2007

United Nations. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (2007-02-05).

United States Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Library,

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center. "Community
Supported Agriculture." 2007.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/csa/csa.shtml
 Sin 20

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Agriculture." Inventory of U.S.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005. April 15, 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Energy." Inventory of U.S.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005. April 15, 2007.

Vigeland, Tess. "Meet the freegans." Marketplace. American Public Media.

November 9, 2007
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/09/consumed2
_mm_3/

World Resources Institute. "Agriculture and Climate Change: Greenhouse Gas

Mitigation Opportunities and the 2007 Farm Bill." WRI Policy Note.
March 2007.

Wikipedia contributors. "Global warming." Wikipedia .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Williams, Florence. "José Bové, A French farmer who dismantled a

McDonald's." January 12, 2001. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Bove-
Dismantled-McDonalds.htm