Bread: Environmental Danger?
- Thread starter MadamSarcastra
- Start date
Jamie in Chile
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
- Reaction score
- 1,817
- Age
- 44
- Lifestyle
- Vegetarian
Don't agree with this article - which is mainly focused on carbon emissions rather than other impacts. It says bread accounts for half a percent of our carbon emissions, and all agriculture is at ten percent, so one twentieth of the total agriculture. That's not a lot, especially when we consider how much bread we eat, toasts with meals, sandwiches, bread with meals.
According to his book How Bad Are Bananas, by Mike Berners Lee, he calculates that if we ate nothing but bread (100% of our calories from bread), and wasted none of it, our carbon footprint from food would be 0.5 tonnes C02e. Most people are in the range 1 - 3 tonnes CO2e for all their food so those calculations, if correct, show that bread is a lower than average carbon food, per calorie.
Bread is far less damaging to the environment than animal products. A loaf of bread has about the carbon footprint of 2 coffees or 2 beers or a toilet roll, according to the calculations in the book I mentioned. That doesn't sound like a big deal, and it isn't.
So we don't need to reduce the amount of bread we consume for environmental reasons, unless you are super hardcore and long since eliminated all the much more important stuff (flight, beef, cars etc). If you can make a decision to stop yourself taking one long haul flight, you will have saved more carbon that all the bread you ever eat in your whole life.
If we had a choice of bread made locally with less fertiliser that would be better. I do think the article makes some good points about fertilizers.
According to his book How Bad Are Bananas, by Mike Berners Lee, he calculates that if we ate nothing but bread (100% of our calories from bread), and wasted none of it, our carbon footprint from food would be 0.5 tonnes C02e. Most people are in the range 1 - 3 tonnes CO2e for all their food so those calculations, if correct, show that bread is a lower than average carbon food, per calorie.
Bread is far less damaging to the environment than animal products. A loaf of bread has about the carbon footprint of 2 coffees or 2 beers or a toilet roll, according to the calculations in the book I mentioned. That doesn't sound like a big deal, and it isn't.
So we don't need to reduce the amount of bread we consume for environmental reasons, unless you are super hardcore and long since eliminated all the much more important stuff (flight, beef, cars etc). If you can make a decision to stop yourself taking one long haul flight, you will have saved more carbon that all the bread you ever eat in your whole life.
If we had a choice of bread made locally with less fertiliser that would be better. I do think the article makes some good points about fertilizers.
OP
OP
I've forgotten how good you are at picking apart things.... Well done.
I don't eat a lot of bread, not loaves... I'll get flatbread or sandwich thins... but this may convince me to start making my own. Yes, there'll still be the wheat flour & other ingredients to consider... but I'm not all that fond of LOTS of bread anymore....
I absolutely love (good) bread and could easily eat it with every meal or even have nothing but bread as my meal...with Miyokos butter.
Same here exempt for that my hips don't agree !!!
I've never seen Miyokos products. What does their butter taste like ? I wasn't too keen on the other non dairy butters that I had in the US.
I agree with Jamie - yes, saying that bread accounts for half a per cent of all greenhouse emissions sounds like a lot ... until you put it into perspective by comparing it what amount of greenhouse gasses are created for the creation of meat, milk and cheese. And those do not feed as many people.
Jamie in Chile
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
- Reaction score
- 1,817
- Age
- 44
- Lifestyle
- Vegetarian
By the way, I don't want to give people the idea thought that something that counts for 0.5% of your carbon footprint can be ignored. A good chunk our entire carbon footprint consists of many things that are individually very small (0.5% or 1% of total) so if we ignored all small things that would be a serious problem for cutting our carbon footprint.
However taking out bread that is 0.5% of our carbon footprint and you'll end up replacing it with some other food that might be 0.5% as well, so it's pointless unless you are able to get some local, organic food.
On the other hand, there are things like buying bottled mineral water that might be say 0.5% of our carbon footprint. If we could cut that out, refilling bottles of tap water and carrying them around with us and only occassionally buying a new bottle rather than buying one every day with the lunch sandwich then we could cut that 0.5% to 0.1%, and that probably is worth it.
If we reduce the amount of new clothes we buy by 30-40%, perhaps there's another 1% of our footprint saved.
If we switch from a new smart phone every year to every two years, perhaps that's another 1% saved.
And there are many such things that can be done.
However taking out bread that is 0.5% of our carbon footprint and you'll end up replacing it with some other food that might be 0.5% as well, so it's pointless unless you are able to get some local, organic food.
On the other hand, there are things like buying bottled mineral water that might be say 0.5% of our carbon footprint. If we could cut that out, refilling bottles of tap water and carrying them around with us and only occassionally buying a new bottle rather than buying one every day with the lunch sandwich then we could cut that 0.5% to 0.1%, and that probably is worth it.
If we reduce the amount of new clothes we buy by 30-40%, perhaps there's another 1% of our footprint saved.
If we switch from a new smart phone every year to every two years, perhaps that's another 1% saved.
And there are many such things that can be done.
By far, the most delicious vegan butter to date, IMO. Very similar to the home made butter recipe that some of us have used, only better...very light and creamy tasting. The closest to dairy butter and I love that there is no palm oil. I always loved Earth Balance but that tastes more like margarine. Miyoko's tastes like butter.
I don't like Earth Balance but haven't tasted any other US brands.
The non dairy butters that we get over here taste good. I don't buy the ones that contain PO. The other day I tried one that contains walnut oil and it was really delicious. I also saw one that has almond oil so I must try it next time.
OP
OP
Well, I'm doin' OK on the water front...
The only new clothes I've purchased in the last five years were a pair a jeans, three bras, a pair of sneakers, & two cotton T-shirts.... and my not-so-smart phone is well over a decade old. I really need to start making my own bread, though... I've thought that for quite some time.
Naturebound1
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2015
- Reaction score
- 1,085
I FINALLY found some Miyokos butter at a store about 2 hours from where I live and grabbed it. It is not sold in any of the stores in my city. I still have not tried it yet but it's sitting in my refrigerator just waiting for me. I so rarely use "butter", not even a big oil user, but I couldn't resist having it around for baking projects (thinking about pie crusts lol). I've heard others say it is much like butter too, as opposed to Earth Balance which is more like margarine.
I don't think I could ever give it up even if it did cause environmental damage.
Huh. I used to think Piers Morgan was reasonably intelligent, although often snide (going by "America's Got Talent"). But he evidently just dragged out that tired old "Collateral Deaths Of Animals From Agriculture" argument...
Here's my take: Animals do get killed in the course of large-scale agriculture, and this is a problem (from my point of view). But as we often point out, it takes more land to grow grains, etc to feed to animals that people eat in turn, than it would if humans just ate the grains directly. Now, I know some land is unsuitable for cultivation- and turning domestic animals out on that land to graze would theoretically minimize those animals' need for grain. But this would displace wild grazers who were already living there, so it's not like "grass-fed" is necessarily lower impact on animals.
But apart from that... I think that to argue "collateral deaths" are equivalent to intentional killing would demand that we show MORE consideration for animals than for humans. For example, humans are killed and maimed in traffic accidents; lowering the speed limit to a crawl (except for emergency vehicles) and/or relying more on mass transportation more would surely reduce or eliminate the mayhem on the roads... yet nobody in their right mind would say that murder is acceptable because of this.
Collateral animal deaths aren't a reason to stop caring about animals, but I suppose it's another reason not to waste food.
Here's my take: Animals do get killed in the course of large-scale agriculture, and this is a problem (from my point of view). But as we often point out, it takes more land to grow grains, etc to feed to animals that people eat in turn, than it would if humans just ate the grains directly. Now, I know some land is unsuitable for cultivation- and turning domestic animals out on that land to graze would theoretically minimize those animals' need for grain. But this would displace wild grazers who were already living there, so it's not like "grass-fed" is necessarily lower impact on animals.
But apart from that... I think that to argue "collateral deaths" are equivalent to intentional killing would demand that we show MORE consideration for animals than for humans. For example, humans are killed and maimed in traffic accidents; lowering the speed limit to a crawl (except for emergency vehicles) and/or relying more on mass transportation more would surely reduce or eliminate the mayhem on the roads... yet nobody in their right mind would say that murder is acceptable because of this.
Collateral animal deaths aren't a reason to stop caring about animals, but I suppose it's another reason not to waste food.
I totally agree.
I was watching Good Morning Britain yesterday and once again Piers bullied Amelia Womack who is a flexitarian stating that she was a hypocrite. According to him if you eat meat only occasionally you cannot call yourself a flexitarian. He went on to say that she stuffed herself with turkey on Christmas day.
He came across as a bully and his dislike for vegans is becoming more and more apparent. He even went on to eat sausages during the interview saying that nobody was going to stop him eating ''delicious meat.''
However, it's been a second day in a row that since the launch of Greggs vegan sausage roll, and veganism is receiving a lot of attention on the show.
Piers Morgan slams 'flexitarian' Green Party deputy Amelia Womack over meat tax debate GMB | Daily Mail Online
