-

Current Dietary Guidelines Could Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions


If Americans altered their current diet to be in line with the USDA guidelines the greenhouse gas emissions that are connected with the agriculture production could increase dramatically. The study looked at about one hundred foods, and looked at what would happen if people changed their diets to follow the USDA 2010 guidelines. The results were alarming. If every American followed the guidelines and kept their caloric intake the same the greenhouse gas emissions would increase by twelve percent. If Americans reduced their caloric intake to 2,000 calories a day this would only decrease the gas emissions by one percent. This goes to show that the current dietary guidelines are not aligned with environmental agendas.

In the US in 2010, food production contributed about eight percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Cattle and dairy cows are the biggest contributor because cows do not use plant-based feed very efficiently. It takes a lot more feed for the cow to be able to produce milk or muscle so the cow is eating a lot more. By eating a lot more grass it takes more chemicals to keep the grass edible and more farming equipment which releases more fuel into the air. Both of these instances are increasing the greenhouse gas emissions. The only way to efficiently reduce the amount of agricultural greenhouse gas emission is to reduce the amount of meat and dairy people are consuming. People still need to eat meat and dairy and researchers are not suggesting that everyone become vegans, however reducing the amount of meat and dairy consumed would both help the environment and be healthier.


University of Michigan. "Dietary recommendations may be tied to increased greenhouse gas emissions." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 5 September 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140905122715.htm>.







- KO

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are All Sugars Created Equal?

-
Image
Are All Sugars Created Equal?  I think one of the most confusing nutrition topics for people is sugar. With so many conflicting stories out there, it’s difficult to separate the facts from the fiction. Not to mention, the types of sugars are endless. How do we know what’s best for our bodies? White or brown sugar? Cane or raw? Should we just go with Stevia instead? Is it even okay to consume artificial sweeteners? Should we avoid foods with high amounts of natural sugar in them? Each answer only seems to lead to another question!  Let’s start off with distinguishing the purpose of sugar in the first place. Do our bodies even need it? The short answer is yes! Sugars are carbohydrates (what we commonly call “carbs”), one of the three main macronutrients that our bodies need for fuel to function and survive. One of the major ways to categorize sugar is by separating the “natural” sugars from the “added” sugars. Natural sugars are, well, naturally found in foods. They give us the energy th
Read more

Milk Mythbusters

-
Image
Just like with any nutrition topic, the facts about milk can become convoluted pretty quickly. Whether you drink milk for the protein, the nutrients, the flavor, or just like to switch it up, there are pros and cons to every kind. Here are some quick nutritional facts about each type to help you decide which is best for you. Animal-Based Milks  Whole Milk: The original diary drink. It gets a bad rap, but what whole milk has going for it, is that it’s in its proper nutritional form. Whole milk contains all of its original fat-soluble vitamins, A, E, D, & K, along with the fat to help you absorb them all. It also has the proper concentrations and ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids, or your omega-3s and omega-6s, so that they are metabolized as they should be. The downside is that whole milk is calorically dense, meaning that a little goes a long way. You don’t need much to get what you need, so just don’t overdo it!  2% Milk: The fat content of 2% milk is about half of that in who
Read more