Hi Everyone! Thank you very much for joining me on this journey for the last 10 weeks.
It has been an enjoyable journey researching and sharing with you the various causes, impacts and solutions of pollution from food production. Before writing this blog, I would have never known that food production has such extensive and deep-rooted pollution problems.
Thankfully, as we have discussed in this blog there are many private companies, researchers and government agencies looking for various solutions to solve the food pollution crisis.
As this would be my last article, I really hope that you have enjoyed the articles and have learnt something from my blog. Thank you very much for your support.
Recent studies have found that emissions from Agriculture are the largest relative contributor to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and the leading cause of Air Pollution mortality in Europe, Russia, the Eastern US, Canada and Japan (Giannadaki et al., 2020). PM2.5 is especially deadly since it can penetrate the lungs and bloodstream while having a toxic chemical composition that can damage organs.
The main source of PM2.5 pollutants from agriculture is ammonia (NH3) and its secondary pollutants (e.g. ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate) that comes from animal husbandry, manure processing and fertiliser use (Giannadaki et al., 2020). These fine particles can stay in the atmosphere for weeks and be transported over large distances and across countries. Furthermore, the combustion of agriculture waste, cropland burning and farming machinery also contribute to the emissions of fine particles (Giannadaki et al., 2020).
So how can we solve this problem?
In Giannadaki et al (2020), they examined the cost and benefits of 5 different NH3 emission reduction methods – Low Nitrogen feed, low emission animal housing, manure store capacity (low efficiency), manure storage capacity (high efficiency) and fertilizers with lower ammonia emissions (see table).
Overall, the study concluded that controlling NH3 emissions had clear economic and public health benefits. By reducing agriculture emissions by 50%, the European Union mortality could be reduced by 18% and enjoy an economic benefit of US$89 billion (Giannadaki et al., 2020).
Given such a clear advantage, countries should definitely consider employing these ammonia reduction techniques. Though, I am wondering given that a large part of global agriculture is in developing countries, could they afford the upfront cost of these less pollutive technologies. What are your thoughts about this? Should developing countries spend money to reduce emissions or improve crop yields?
References
Giannadaki, D., Giannakis, E., Pozzer, A., & Lelieveld, J. (2018). Estimating health and economic benefits of reductions in air pollution from agriculture. The Science of the Total Environment, 622-623, 1304-1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.064
Featured image from https://unsplash.com/photos/ifpBOcQlhoY
In previous articles, we explored how conventional agriculture produces a large amount of soil and air pollution. Globally, 70% of water usage and 38% of non-frozen land is used for growing food, this percentage is expected to rapidly increase as the global population increases (Boylan, 2020). As more land is deforested for agriculture, there would be increases in carbon emissions and a decrease in natural carbon sequestration.
Today, we will explore Hydroponics, a more modern form of agriculture that is believed to be less pollutive and requires significantly lesser land.
Instead of using soil, Hydroponics cultivate plants indoors, with the plant’s bare roots in a continuous shallow stream of nutrient-enriched water (Okafor, 2021). Instead of sunlight, plants receive energy from LED lighting that is tailored to the energy needs of the plants (Boylan, 2020).
Figure 1: Hydroponics plants being grown on vertical racks (Source: Okafor, 2021)
Hydroponics has various advantages over conventional farming. By growing crops in such a controlled environment, Hydroponic crops can be grown vertically, reducing the landuse by up to 90-99% (Boyland, 2020). The reduction in land use results in lesser deforestation, reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants. Furthermore, as the plants are fed fertilizers through water pipes that constantly recycle the nutrient-rich water, there is no surface runoff, preventing water pollution and algae bloom in rivers and lakes (Haspel, 2016).
However, Hydroponics is extremely expensive and energy-intensive. Hydroponics farm requires large amounts of technology and electricity to power lighting, humidity control, ventilation and constantly pump water through the roots of the plants. The production of hydroponic lettuce is estimated to have a carbon footprint that is 7-20 times greater than outdoor lettuce production (Haspel, 2016).
Therefore, while Hydroponics produces lesser soil and water pollution, this technique still has a large environmental impact due to its high electricity usage. Hence, sustainable Hydroponics will need to be paired with renewable, clean energy sources such as solar and hydroelectricity.
What do you think about hydroponics? Did you know that Singapore has a few hydroponic farms?
References
Boylan, C. (2020). THE FUTURE OF FARMING: HYDROPONICS. Retrieved on March 20, 2022 from https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/9/the-future-of-farming-hydroponics
Haspel, T. (2016). Will indoor, vertical farming help us feed the planet — or hurt it? Retrieved on March 20, 2022 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/will-indoor-vertical-farming-help-us-feed-the-planet–or-hurt-it/2016/06/16/f1faaa98-3332-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?linkId=26196069
Okafor, J. (2021). Environmental Benefits of Hydroponics. Retrieved on March 20, 2022 from https://www.trvst.world/sustainable-living/environmental-benefits-of-hydroponics/
Featured Image from https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/special/containers/hydroponic-gardening-indoors.htm
Hi there! Hope you are having a great week so far. Today, we would be discussing the emission of greenhouse gases due to rice farming and potential solutions to improve the problem.
Rice is a staple in most Southeast Asian countries. Personally, I won’t be able to go a day without having rice in at least one of my meals. Unfortunately, our beloved rice is actually a major contributor of greenhouse gases, contributing to global climate change.
Rice paddies produce large amounts of Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Dioxide (NO2), both potent and persistent greenhouse gases. Global rice farming is estimated to produce 20-40 Tg/yr of Methane, accounting for 10-20% of the global anthropogenic emissions of methane (CH4) (Li et al., 2018). On the other hand, rice cultivation also emits nitrous oxide (N20), at an estimated rate of 32 Gg N2O-N yr−1 (Li et al., 2018).
Methane is produced by the anaerobic decomposition of organic material in flooded rice fields, the gas then escapes to the atmosphere through the rice plants (IPCC, 1996). Nitrous Dioxide is produced by soil microorganisms and the rice plants act as a channel, emitting them into the atmosphere (Timilsina et al., 2020).
According to Li et al. (2018) study, the use of the Water Saving Irrigation Technique as opposed to conventional irrigation which is characterised by leaving the rice field continuously flooded reduces Methane production. The Water-Saving Irrigation method involves alternating flooding and draining the fields depending on the stage of the rice plant. This method is found to reduce Methane emissions by over 30% while providing a similar rice yield (Li et al., 2018).
The same study also found that the use of Modified Nitrogen fertilisers such as controlled release Urea (CRU), Uresase inhibitor (UI) has the potential to reduce N20 emissions (Li et al., 2018). When compared to conventional fertilisers, the modified nitrogen fertilisers produces 18-34% lesser Nitrogen Dioxide emissions (Li et al., 2018).
Hope you learned something from this week’s blog post. Stay tuned for more articles about food pollution.
References
Li, J., Li, Y., Wan, Y., Wang, B., Waqas, M. A., Cai, W., Guo, C., Zhou, S., Su, R., Qin, X., Gao, Q., & Wilkes, A. (2018). Combination of modified nitrogen fertilizers and water saving irrigation can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase rice yield. Geoderma, 315, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.11.033
IPCC. (1996). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Retrieved on March 6, 2022 from https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/guidelin/ch4ref5.pdf
Timilsina, A., Bizimana, F., Pandey, B., Yadav, R. K. P., Dong, W., & Hu, C. (2020). Nitrous oxide emissions from paddies: Understanding the role of rice plants. Plants (Basel), 9(2), 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9020180
Featured image from https://unsplash.com/photos/jaPjICK8ee8
Hi there! Hope you are having a great week. Welcome back to Pollutive Food where we discuss the pollution arising from food production. In one of the previous posts, we discussed the water and air pollution from producing Dairy. In recent years, there has been gaining traction for plant-based milk as a supposedly less pollutive and environmentally friendly alternative to Milk from Cows.
In the United States, the dairy alternative has been growing rapidly at 13.2% from 2015 to 2018 while consumption of dairy milk has been on a steady decline for the past few decades (Grant & Hicks, 2018). This has been partly due to the increasing awareness of the environmental impacts of dairy and the rising prevalence of lactose intolerance (Grant & Hicks, 2018). However, is plant-based milk really less pollutive than dairy?
Today, we will examine Grant & Hicks (2018) Life Cycle Analysis of Dairy, Soy and Almond Milk. The study examined the environmental impact at every stage, from production, transportation and in retail stores. Note that the study compares the 3 types of “Milk” in multiple environmental factors but this Blog posts only discuss the Air and Water Pollution portions.
Referring to Figure 1, it is interesting to see that the greenhouse gas pollution (represented by Global Warming Potential) is lowest for dairy and quite similar for all 3 sources of milk. While Soy and Almond produce lesser Greenhouse gas in the production process, the 2 milk type requires more extensive refrigeration and are average transported over a longer distance (Grant & Hicks, 2018). Furthermore, for Almond Milk, the energy use for regular mechanical irrigation (almond requires significantly more water than the other 2 types of milk) and use of nitrogen fertilisers contributed to its greenhouse gas pollution footprint (Grant & Hicks, 2018).
Figure 1: Global Warming Potential per litre of Dairy, Almond and Soy Milk
Source: Grant & Hicks (2018)
In terms of Eutrophication impact (water pollution), Almond and Soy Milk are significantly better than Dairy Milk (See Figure 2). The production of feed for dairy cows is extremely fertiliser intensive and contributes to the eutrophication impacts of dairy milk (Grant & Hicks, 2018). Soy milk has a significantly smaller eutrophication impact as soybean plants can fix their own nitrogen and require fewer nitrogen fertilizers than corn (used as animal feed), almonds and most other crops (Grant & Hicks, 2018).
Figure 2: Eutrophication effect per litre of Dairy, Almond and Soy Milk
Source: Grant & Hicks (2018)
In Today’s blog post, we can see that Plant-based milk (namely Soy and Almond) may not actually be less pollutive as compared to Dairy Milk. The air pollution caused by Milk is highly dependent on the transportation distance, refrigeration in retail stores and source of electricity. The water pollution created is also largely dependent on the specific farm and agricultural practices, though the intrinsic properties of the Soybean plant seem to be significantly less pollutive. Therefore, it is also important to acknowledge the limitation of such lifecycle analysis. Studies conducted in different countries or using different farms will likely yield different results.
Hope you have enjoyed today’s blog post. Do share with me what is your take on Plant-based Milk.
References
Grant, C. A., & Hicks, A. L. (2018). Comparative life cycle assessment of milk and plant-based alternatives. Environmental Engineering Science, 35(11), 1235-1247. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2018.0233
Featured image from https://unsplash.com/photos/f5Qpv6wps1Y
In our last few post, we explored how producing dairy, pork and even vegetables can produce large amount of water and air pollution. These pollutants then have a variety of impacts on human health and other organisms. How can we help to solve this problem?
Well, we can start by consuming lesser meat and more vegetables. We can even be more conscious about our choice of Meat. A single serving of Beef emits roughly 330g CO2-eq while chicken emits only 52 g CO2-eq and vegetables around 14 g CO2-eq (Vox, 2017).
By selecting cleaner meats like Chicken, we are contributing to a much smaller pollution footprint. Alternatively, if we are willing to try plant-based meat, which produces drastically lesser pollution and have a much smaller impact on our environment.
Find out more about a less pollutive diet by watching this video by Vox. What other tips do you have for having a more sustainable diet? Do you agree with the suggestions provided by the video?
References:
Vox (2017). The diet that helps fight climate change. Retrieved on Feburary 23, 2022 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUnJQWO4YJY&t=94s
Featured Image from https://unsplash.com/photos/jUPOXXRNdcA
The rearing of livestock for meat is extremely pollutive, accounting for 30% of global greenhouse gases (Smetana et al., 2015). Furthermore, industrial farming produces vast quantities of animal manure that can pollute water sources and the ground. In previous posts, we explored how plant-based meats and lab-grown meat are significantly less pollutive as compared to livestock farming. Hence, alternative protein sources are increasingly seen as a potential solution to livestock rearing, a major contributor to the global pollution problem.
A more controversial source of “clean” protein comes from insects. Insects as a protein source have multiple advantages, being extremely rich in protein (more than 50% protein in dry weight) while having high reproduction rates, high feed to yield rates and low environmental impact (Caparros Megido et al., 2016).
Based on a life cycle analysis study, a gram of edible protein from insects produces 32-167% lesser Greenhouse Gas emissions as compared to Broiler Chicken and 6-13 times lesser than Beef (Huis & Ooniex, 2017). Furthermore, rearing insects requires 8-14 times lesser land and 5 times lesser water compared to Cattle (Huis & Ooniex, 2017). This represents a drastic reduction in pollution caused by the clearing of land and water pollution.
Check out the informative video below on consuming insects by The Economist.
However, would you be willing to start eating mealworms or crickets for the environment and to reduce pollution? The taste and appearance of insects will likely remain a massive obstacle towards adopting insects as an alternative protein source.
To overcome this challenge, various companies have started mixing finely grounded insects with other ingredients to create appealing looking patties. Since 2015, Bugfoundation has been selling insect-based patty (grounded buffalo worms mixed with vegetarian ingredients) in Belgium, Netherlands and Germany (Damm & Moynihan, 2018). In Southeast Asia, Etno launched an insect-based burger patty in Malaysia, made with plant-based ingredients but enriched with cricket powder as a protein source (Neo, 2021).
Figure 1 : Insect-based Burger by Etno (Source: Neo,2021)
Would making “insect” based food products look and taste appealing make you more willing to adopt insects as a main source of protein? While insects have vast potential to reduce the air and land pollution associated with the farming of livestock, it still has a long way to mass adoption.
Stay tuned for more stories about the causes and solutions to pollution from food.
References:
Caparros Megido, R., Gierts, C., Blecker, C., Brostaux, Y., Haubruge, É., Alabi, T., & Francis, F. (2016). Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in western countries. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 237-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.004
Damm, C. & Moynihan Q. (2018). Two German guys figured out how to get people to Eat insect Burgers. Retrieved February 18, 2022, from https://www.businessinsider.com/these-two-german-guys-got-people-to-eat-insect-burgers-2018-5
Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A., & Heinz, V. (2015). Meat alternatives: Life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(9), 1254-1267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6\
Neo, P. (2021). Bug Burger ASPIRATIONS: Ento looks to emulate Beyond meat success with launch of first insect burger patty. Retrieved February 18, 2022, from https://www.foodnavigator-asia.com/Article/2021/01/21/Bug-burger-aspirations-Ento-looks-to-emulate-Beyond-Meat-success-with-launch-of-first-insect-burger-patty
Huis, v., Arnold, & Oonincx, D. G. A. B. (2017). The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37(5), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0452-8
Featured Image from https://www.stern.de/wirtschaft/die-hoehle-der-loewen/bugfoundation–das-steckt-im-insektenburger-aus-der-hoehle-der-loewen-8362014.html
Welcome back to Polutive Food! Last week, we examined how rearing livestock produces large amounts of Greenhouse gases and plant-based meat is seen as a potential solution to this problem. However, some fans of real meat (from livestock) are sceptical of the taste and concerned with the artificial flavourings in plant-based meat.
If only we can have real animal meat without the pollution and ethical concerns around rearing animals.
In December 2020, Singapore gave regulatory approval to the world’s first lab-grown chicken meat (Carrington, 2020). The “meat” was created in a laboratory where no animal had to be raised and slaughtered. The meat cells were cultivated in a bioreactor and combined with plant-based ingredients to produce meat without an animal (Carrington, 2020). This technology is argued to reduce the land required and pollution generated in creating meat.
Is lab-grown meat truly less pollutive? Based on a life cycle analysis study, when compared to conventionally produced meat in Europe, cultured meat uses 99% lesser land, 82% lesser water and produces 78% lower Greenhouse gas emissions (Tuomisto & Mattos, 2011).
However, while lab-grown meat produces lesser methane as compared to cattle, it is more energy-intensive and produces more carbon dioxide (European Environment Agency, 2020). While both are greenhouse gases, methane only remains in the atmosphere for about 12 years, while carbon dioxide can remain for millennia (European Environment Agency, 2020). Hence, it is not a straightforward answer if lab-grown meat is less pollutive than conventional meat.
Even if lab-grown meat is less pollutive, it still needs to gain mass adoption and replaced livestock meat for there to be a reduction in global emissions. With no commercial-scale production, lab-grown meat is extremely expensive with the lab-grown chicken bites reportedly costing $50 per piece (BBC, 2020). Such a premium pricing meant that only the wealthy and extremely environmentally conscious people can afford the switch. This severely limits lab-grown meat as a solution to global pollution from food production.
Would you be willing to try lab-grown meat? Share with me your thoughts and opinions.
References:
BBC. (2020). Singapore approves LAB-GROWN ‘chicken’ meat. Retrieved February 08, 2022, from https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55155741
Carrington, D. (2020). No-kill, lab-grown meat to go on sale for first time. Retrieved February 08, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/02/no-kill-lab-grown-meat-to-go-on-sale-for-first-time
European Environment Agency (2020). Artificial meat and the environment. Retrieved February 08, 2022 from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/artificial-meat-and-the-environment/at_download/file
Tuomisto, H. L., & Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. (2011). Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(14), 6117-6123. doi:10.1021/es200130u
Featured Image: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55155741
As discussed previously, the production of food, especially meat is extremely pollutive. The rearing of livestock for meat requires a large amount of feed, water and land while emitting a large amount of carbon dioxide and methane (both greenhouse gases) (Michel, Hartmann & Siegrist, 2021). Worse of all, the global demand for meat is projected to rise by 73% by 2050 (European Environment Agency, 2020), worsening the pollution problem.
In recent years, there has been increasing attention towards reducing emissions and land impact of the meat industry. One such solution is plant-based meat, a more sustainable alternative to meat from livestock. For instance, the Beyond Meat patty, made primarily with pea protein, canola oil and coconut oil is designed to look, cook and taste like ground beef (Heller & Keoleian, 2018).
Are these plant-based meat really less pollutive?
Based on existing studies, the answer appears to be “Yes”. A study found that replacing beef with equally nutritious plant-based products would use only require 10% of the land and produce only 4% of the greenhouse gas emission (Kusch & Fiebelkorn, 2019). Focusing Beyond Meat’s patty, the life cycle analysis found that the meat alternative produces 90% lesser greenhouse gas, requires 99.5% lesser water and 93% lesser land use as compact to conventional beef (Heller & Keoleian, 2018).
Figure 1: Comparision between Beyond Burger and Beef Patty (Heller & Keoleian, 2018)
Based on these results, plant-based meats do have huge potential to drastically solve the pollution problem of meat production. However, the challenge would be to get consumers to switch from traditional meat to plant-based meats. Plant-based meat faces multiple challenges towards adoption – (1) Price, (2) Consumer awareness of the product and (3) Consumer perception towards the “fake” meat. Hopefully, with the increasing adoption of plant-based meat in mainstream restaurants, there will be increased consumer adoption.
Would you be willing to give up your beef patty for a plant-based patty to save the environment?
Heller, M. C. & Keoleian, G. A. (2018). Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger Life Cycle Assessment: A detailed comparison between a plant based and an animal-based protein source. Retrieved on Jan 30, 2022 from http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/publication/CSS18-10.pdf
Kusch, S., & Fiebelkorn, F. (2019). Environmental impact judgments of meat, vegetarian, and insect burgers: Unifying the negative footprint illusion and quantity insensitivity. Food Quality and Preference, 78, 103731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103731
Michel, F., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2021). Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Quality and Preference, 87, 104063. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063
Featured Image from https://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2019&no=213221
