Food systems contribute 19 percent to 29 percent of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, according to a 2012 study by scientists from the University of Copenhagen, Oxford and the Natural Environmental Research Council. Of that amount, agriculture production and changes to the land caused by production contribute up to 86 percent.
When people look to make food choices that lower their personal carbon footprint, meat and its viability as a sustainable diet choice often take center stage. The personal decisions consumers make about eating free-range, grass-fed, organic or hormone-free meat are the same decisions industry professionals, from ranchers to fast food chain executives, are discussing around the world as they try to target what exactly sustainable meat means.
“Can we say we’re buying any sustainable beef today?” Bob Langert, McDonald’s Corp.’s sustainability vice president, said in an interview with Bloomberg last year. “No, we can’t. Could we be buying sustainable beef? We might be. What I mean by that is that there are no standards, measures, accountability and traceability to make those claims today.”
Consumer spending habits often drive change, but guidance on what consumers should demand from their meat producers can be confusing when there are so many different terms associated with sustainable meat — organic, local, free-range, grass-fed, hormone-free.
To read the rest of the story, please go to: Boulder Weekly