Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 1

Ecological Footprint of Veggie Burgers

Kate Gallagher

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 2

Tables Of Contents ______________________________________________________________________ Abstract Introduction Are they really made with veggies? Land Use Change Emissions Water Footprint through the Manufacturing of Veggie Burgers A More Concentrated Look Into Soy Protein Concentrate 3 4 4,5 5-7 7-9 9-12

Energy Use in Packaging, Transportation and Storage

12-14

Use and Disposal Summary and Proposal Citations

14,15 15 16,17

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 3

Abstract Environmental vegetarianism is a rapidly growing dietary choice that excludes meat in order to lower their carbon footprint. While reducing meat consumption is a huge benefit to the environment, globalization of the food markets and the industrialization of processed foods leads to a poor ecological footprint as well. Veggie burgers created by Morningstar and Boca Burger, the highest sold veggie burgers in the US, barely contain any vegetable ingredients at all. Instead, soy protein concentrate and chemical fillers create the texture and taste of meat alternatives. The land needed for soybean crops contributes highly to carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, land use change attributed to monoculture farming accounted for 617% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions during the 1990s (Flynn, Canals, Keller, King, Sim, Hastings, Wang & Smith, 2012.) The most concentrated areas for soybean farming in South America are also the largest emitters of carbon dioxide from soybean farms. This creates an exponential increase in environmental damage form their growth. Water footprints are also a large concern in times of scarce potable water sources. A full 86%of the worlds water supply goes to growing food (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008). This would indicate that dietary choices can majorly help or hurt the current water issues. Veggie burgers use less water than meat; a 150 g beef burger uses 2350 l while only 158 l for a veggie burger, but there is still a high water footprint in soybean production (Ercin, Aldaya & Hoesktra, 2011.) The source of water use is not within the extraction of soybeans. It was calculated that 99.9% of the water footprint of a veggie burger is used in supply-chain processes (Ercin, Aldaya & Hoesktra, 2011.) This supply-chain includes the manufacturing and packaging of the burgers. A major environmental and individual health concern occurs in the production of soy protein concentrate. This is the first and second listed ingredients in Morningstar Farms and Boca Burgers, respectively. The use of hexane as a solvent in protein concentrate and soy oil, a group D air pollutant, that has been known to cause neurotoxic effects in both acute and chronic exposure, ("Hexane," 2000.) The EPA states that it is aware of the emissions throughout the production, however considers the effects negligible if left under the TMDL. Lastly, the packaging, transporting, and storage of veggie burgers contributes to 80-90% of the products energy consumption (Duemling, Wackernagel & Monfreda , 2003.) This is due mainly to globalization and throw-away culture. The packaging also contributes to the largest input of municipal solid waste (March, 2007.)

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 4

Introduction There are many reasons why people choose to reduce meat in their diets; health, animal cruelty, and recently a large influx in environmental vegetarianism. Environmental vegetarianism promotes the idea that vegetarians have a smaller ecological footprint than meat eaters. Studies have found that a non-vegetarian diet consumed 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more primary energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticide than a vegetarian diet (World Health Organization, 2000) (Marlow, Hayes, Soret, Carter, Schwab, Sabate, and Am, 2009). While the idea that reducing meat is widely accepted as being more environmental, it brings to mind the question of whether meats alternative, soy causes environmental harm. Products like veggie burgers, sausage, and chicken are consumed multiple times a day by many vegetarians. The ecological footprint of a product focuses on the impacts that amount from extraction to waste. While there are many different soy meatalternative products this ecological footprint will only focus on veggie burgers. Are they really made with veggies? Many veggie burgers are marketed as healthy and natural, with green leaves on the package and rolling farms in the distance. However, if the consumer were to take one look at the ingredients on the back of Boca Burger, Americas most widely renowned veggie burger company, they would be alarmed at the amount of words that they could not pronounce. In fact, the ingredients make it difficult to call these veggie burgers instead of simply soy burgers with flavoring. These health foods contain;

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 5

water, soy protein concentrate, wheat gluten, contains less than 2% of methylcellulose, salt, caramel color, dried onions, yeast extract, sesame oil, hydrolyzed wheat protein, natural and artificial flavor (non-meat), disodium guanylate, disodium inosinate. Contains: soy, wheat, sesame (Boca Burger, 2014.) Though none of these ingredients are listed many veggie burgers also offer corn, black bean, tomatoes, wheat, as well as soy. All of these ingredients are known as the most commonly genetically modified crops and are normally grown using monoculture techniques. Despite being labeled as natural the only way to ensure that products do not use genetically modified seeds, contain preservatives and other chemicals, or heavy pesticides is through the purchase of organically certified products (McKevoy, 2013.) Even organic products can bear harm on the environment. The ecological footprint of of a product considers the water use, carbon emissions, deforestation, and chemicals used in production. Land Use Change Emissions

Land use change as a result of switching from forest and grass covers to monoculture farming accounted for 6-17% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions during the 1990s (Flynn, Canals, Keller, King, Sim, Hastings, Wang & Smith, 2012.) Swapping a biologically diverse plot of shrubbery or forestlands for a monoculture extracts nutrients from the soil, uses more water, and increases the lands vulnerability to disease and pests, thereby increasing the needs of herbicides and

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 6

pesticides that wreak havoc on local water sources. It also limits the lands ability to capture carbon successfully due to the lack of older growth vegetation.

Soy is the second listed ingredient in Boca Burgers and is one of the widest farmed crops worldwide. The U.S., Argentina, Brazil, China and India account for 90% of the worlds soybean production (Soyatech, 2012.) In 2000 the U.S. produced 75 million tons and exported more than one-third of its yields. Soy production is rising parallel to green and health trends. The huge business in soy farming has lead to environmental groups like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Foundation to associate the heavy deforestation in Brazil with soybeans (Fangione, Hill, Tilman, Polasky, Hawthorne, 2008.) The high concentrations of soy needed in veggie burgers make the ingredient its biggest ecological impact. To make only .19 tons of soy oil it takes a ton of soybeans (Flynn, Canals, Keller, King, Sim, Hastings, Wang & Smith, 2012.) This helps to indicate the amount of waste created in the production method of turning soy into food products.

Land-use change emissions for conversion of natural vegetation on mineral soils to soybean cropping under typical management for top 20 producing countries. Strength of shading reflects level of emissions with black representing 42 t CO2-eq h_1 yr or more. (Flynn, Canals, Keller, King, Sim, Hastings, Wang & Smith, 2012)

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 7

In a study on carbon emissions from land use change done in 2012, the

conversion of natural vegetation to soy cropping under typical management emits between 1.2 and 47.5 t CO2-eq ha_1 yr_1(Flynn, Canals, Keller, King, Sim, Hastings, Wang & Smith, 2012.) The lowest emissions calculated were in areas of temperate climates like Europe and the United States while the highest were from tropical rainforests in the countries of Asia or Brazil (Flynn, Canals, Keller, King, Sim, Hastings, Wang & Smith, 2012.). This trend can be seen in the map above. Emissions from Brazilian rainforest converted to soy were calculated as 41.6 t CO2 ha_1 yr_1, which is similar to other case study finds. Despite the higher impact of CO2 emissions in tropical regions Brazil and Argentina remain two of the largest exporters of the beans. This means that the most land use changed is also producing the most emissions, adding to climate change exponentially. Water Footprint through the Manufacturing of Veggie Burgers

The comparison between water use in meat based diets and vegetarian based diets is a hot topic in environmental vegetarianism. Despite this common comparison between hamburgers and salads, few studies has actually been completed on the water footprint of vegetarians actual alternatives to one Americas most popular foods. A full 86% of the worlds water supply goes to growing food (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008). In a world with diminishing potable water supplies, dietary considerations to salvage as much water as possible are important. A study on a veggie burger factory in the Netherlands sought to find actual data on the differences between hamburgers and veggie burgers. While they did find a large difference in water use; a 150 g beef burger

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 8

uses 2350 l while only 158 l for a veggie burger, there is still a high water footprint in soybean production (Ercin, Aldaya & Hoesktra, 2011.)

The case study considers both the operational and supply-chain water use towards the footprint. Operational footprint includes all water used and polluted during the farming of the soybeans while the supply-chain involves the production of the actual veggie burger and its packaging. Interestingly enough despite the amount of water that goes into farming of soybeans, 99.9% of the water footprint of a veggie burger is used in supply-chain processes (Ercin, Aldaya & Hoesktra, 2011.) The water used in transport, consumption, and disposal are negligible and not considered in this case study.

In order to calculate the total water footprint the agricultural water inputs are considered, followed by phosphorous fertilizer mitigation. Due to the fact that it is difficult to monitor leaching into groundwater the study considers leaching to be zero. These factors assume the minimal water footprint through the agricultural process. The actual production of the veggie burger is more difficult to determine. The weight of the raw product going in, multiplied by the amount of water needed to create the basic ingredient is then added to the sum of the parts of the veggie burger. For example, .025 kg of soybeans are added to a 150 g burger processes. The source of the beans, Canada and France (50% each), are then calculated for their water uses from the original agricultural calculations. The green, blue and grey water footprints of the soybean mix are 1860, 130 and 795 m3/ton. Around 86% of the weight of the raw soybeans are maintained prior to being dehulled and of that weight 74% become base milk for the veggie patties The value of the base milk is 94%, making it the most water

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 9

intensive ingredient within the burger (Ercin, Aldaya & Hoesktra, 2011.) These types of calculations are continued throughout the necessary ingredients to the burger and in the packaging materials as well. This can be seen in the chart below.

Water footprint of veggie burger production (Ercin, Aldaya & Hoesktra, 2011.)

These results support vegetarian options as having much less of a water footprint than meat products, but the veggie burgers still leave an impact. The large scale use of water could be avoided through locally produced vegetarian alternatives and homemade veggie burgers.

A More Concentrated Look Into Soy Protein Concentrate

Upon taking a quick look at the ingrediants in both Boca and Morningstar Farms veggie burgers, owned by mega-corporations Kraft and Kelloggs, a consumer may

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 10

notice that they are not eactly sure how some of additives are even pronounced, rather than produced. The second ingrediants in Boca Burgers, and the top in Morningstar Farms Grillers Original, is soy protein concentrate. This could sound like a relatively harmless product compared to its companions in Boca Burgers like disodium isonate, methyl cullolose, hydrolized wheat protein, caramel color, and disdium guanylate (Boca Burger, 2014), however the mechincal process in creating soy protein concentrate is slightly alarming to anyone seeking a natural lunch.

The process of creating soy protein concentrate basically involves seperating the soybean oil from the protein through the use of the chemical hexane. This typically consists of five steps: oilseed handling/elevator operations, preparation of soybeans for solvent extraction, solvent extraction and oil desolventizing, flake desolventizing, and oil refining ("Vegetable oil processing," 1995). Hexane is used as the solvent and between each step it is being applied and dried away. The EPA states that some hexane leaves the facilities as a small fraction of the oil or meal products, but this amount has not been quantified (Vegetable oil processing," 1995). Meaning that there is an unknown amount of hexane left in the product being sent out to create in veggie burgers, soybean oil, and other soy products, however, the EPA believes it to be negligible. This unknown amount may not seem disturbing unless the toxicity of this chemical is understood. In fact, according to the EPA, hexane exposure can cause

Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure of humans to high levels of hexane causes mild central nervous system (CNS) effects. Chronic (long-term) exposure to hexane in air is associated with polyneuropathy in humans. Neurotoxic effects

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 11

have also been exhibited in rats. No information is available on the carcinogenic effects of hexane in humans or animals. EPA has classified hexane as a Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity based on lack of data. ("Hexane," 2000)

Not only do the consumers of soy protein concentrate subject themselves to hexane exposure, but the workers and local residents of factories are receiving it in unnatural daily. Hexane emissions are classified under Volatiles Organic Compounds (VOCs). Along with VOCs, the EPA requires soybean refineries to monitor particulate matter pollution. The process of the soy protein concentrate leaves many areas for hexane air pollution as shown in the table for total emission losses.

Hexane Emissions during Soy Protein Concentrate Production ("Vegetable oil processing," 1995).

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 12

Many of the ingrediants in the burgers also contain chemicals like caramel coloring that are considered toxic. Caramel coloring is assoaciated with carcinogens (Hudson, 2014), methyl cellulose used to create texture is also used in laxatives and eyedrops, Hydrolized wheat protein is also obtained using hexane and doubles as a popular shampoo ingrediant (Wilder), and disodium guanylate is not recommened for people with asthma or children under 12 weeks (Disodium Guanlylate.) Considering many consumers of veggie burgers purchase them to avoid the health impacts of meat and its productions impact on the environment, they may be upset when they come to find that theres a toxicity section on the ingrediants in their meal.

Energy Use in Packaging, Transportation and Storage

A majority of the fossil fuel use involved in providing processed foods onto consumers plates comes from the processing, packaging, transportation, storage, and retail. On average, the energy input to a processed product is 10:1 (Pimental and Pimental, 1996.) Post-production processes account for 80-90% of this energy (Duemling, Wackernagel & Monfreda , 2003) Globalization has created a huge toll on the carbon footprint of food supply. Since 1961, despite the world population only doubling, the value of the global food trade has tripled and the tonnage of food being transported has quadrupled. The average food item in the US travels 1,500 miles, and considering many veggie burgers components being made in separate factories this is not difficult to believe (Duemling, Wackernagel & Monfreda , 2003). Homemade and local veggie

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 13

burgers could save 650 times the carbon dioxide as opposed to imported and processed (Duemling, Wackernagel & Monfreda , 2003).

The second highest energy use in processed foods is storage and refrigeration. More than half of the energy consumption in food retail stores is used in refrigeration (Heller and Keoleian, 2000). Producer information states that ten year old technology in refrigerators use 2.7 times as much energy as a new, high quality model (Faist and Kanyama). It is important to consider this in the energy footprint of the storage portion of veggie burgers lifecycle. A ten year old refrigerator uses around 0.029 MJ per litre net volume per day. With an average of only 50% utilization this energy raises to 0.058 MJ per litre, day. These refrigerators are similar energy uses within commercial and private locations, with the major differences being the amount of refrigeration needs in mass, as well as the constant opening and closing of refrigerators in commercial locations. If a storage time of 90 days is applied to veggie burgers without being sold or eaten, energy use for storage in the commercial building or household becomes 5.2 MJ per litre food (Faist and Kanyama).

Veggie burgers have similar post-production energy inputs as hamburgers. (Faist and Kanyama)

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 14

Though veggie burgers have a lower energy input than hamburgers for preproduction, they have similar energy needs in post-production processes. They are transported from major farms and factories outside of the country, packaged in plastic sleeves with cardboard outer shells, refrigerated, and cooked in parallel manners. The previous chart summarized the energy uses found in an ecological footprint of hamburgers, and is a good idea of the pot-production energy inputs for veggie burgers as well.

Use and Disposal

The use of veggie burgers is a relatively quick expirience. Though the process from soybean field to the consumers mouth can take months, the dining expirence lasts only minutes. Between these moments lies plenty of pesticides, chemical inputs, energy, water, and deforestion. The moment of consumption does not indicate the end of the veggie burgers ecological footprint, by any means. Because what is left over is the throw away societies convienent packaging; plastic and cardboard.

Recycling has become an increasingly stronger trend, but foodpackaging still contributes to municiple solid waste. Between 2003-2005 containers and packaging for foodstuffs contributed to 31% of municipal solid waste. An EPA analysis of per capita MSW generation shows that there is a constant rate of 4.5 lb/person/day since the 1990s (Marsh, 2007.) Due to rising population and food needs waste generation has steadily grown since 1960. Fortunately recovery rate for the waste has also increased. In 2005

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 15

32.1% of MSW was recovered through recyclcing and composting. Of the recovered waste containers and packaging has the highest rate at 39.9% of the amount generated (March, 2007.) This recovery rate is definitly a good thing, as it takes 2 months for cardboard to decompose and 10-20 years for plastic bag materials, even up to 30 for thicker plastics.

Summary and Proposal

Veggie burgers have a much lower impact on the environment than comparative hamburgers, yet they are still not guiltless in their ecological impact, nor are they necessarily healthier. Filled with confusing molecules that dont resemble food, major meat alternative foods from large corporations sound more like a science project than lunch. The chemicals directly added to the product are only a small aspect of the pesticides, water and energy use, and carbon dioxide emissions added to the earth throughout the burgers lifecycle. To decrease the impact on the environment as well as consumers, homemade and local food sources are the most environmentally friendly dietary lifestyle.

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 16

Citations Brian Halweil, Home Grown: The Case for Local Food in a Global Market, Worldwatch Paper 163 (Washington D.C.: Worldwatch Institute, 2002). Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter? Marlow HJ, Hayes WK, Soret S, Carter RL, Schwab ER, Sabat J. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1699S-1703S. Epub 2009 Apr 1. "Disodium Guanylate." In-R-Food. 2014. Retrieved from www.inrfood.com/ingredients/4610 Duemling, D., Wackernagel, M., & Monfreda , C. (2003). Eating up the earth: how sustainable food systems shrink our ecological impact. Redefining Progress, Retrieved from http://agronwww.agron.iastate.edu/Courses/agron515/eatearth.pdf Ercin, A., Aldaya, M., & Hoesktra, A. (2011). The water footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products. Ecological Indicators, 18(2012), 392-402. Retrieved from http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Ercin-et-al-2012-WaterFootprintSoy.pdf Halweil; Matthew Hora and Judy Tick, From Farm to Table: Making the Connection in the Mid-Atlantic Food System (Washington D.C.: Capital Area Food Bank, 2001); R. Pirog, T. Van Pelt, K. Enshayan, and E. Cook, Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa Perspective on How Far Food Travels, Fuel Useage, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Ames, Iowa: Heller, M., & Keoleian, G. (2000). Life cycle based sustainabilty indictors for assessment of the us food systems. (Master's thesis, Unviersity Of Michigan)Retrieved from http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS00-04.pdf Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, 2001); The Practical Farmer 9: 3, Fall Issue (1994); and J. Barton, Transportation and Fuel Requirements in the Food and Fiber System, Agricultural Economic Report No. 444 (Economic, Statistics and Cooperative Service, USDA, 1980). Hudson, William. "Consumer Reports: Too Many Sodas Contain Potential Carcinogen." CNN. Cable News Network, 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 04 Mar. 2014 "FAOSTAT: Production, Crops, Cassava, 2010 data". Food and Agriculture Organization. 2011. Fargione, Joseph; Hill, Jason; Tilman, David; Polasky, Stephen; Hawthorne, Peter (February 2008). "Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt". Science 319 (5867): 12351238. Bibcode:2008Sci...319.1235F. doi:10.1126/science.1152747. PMID 18258862. Flynn, H., Canals, L., Keller, E., King, H., Sim, S., Hastings, A., Wang, S., & Smith, P. (2012). Quantifying global greenhouse gas emissions from land use change for crop production. Global Change Biology, 18, 16221635. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02618.x

Veggie Burger Ecological Footprint 17 Heller, M., & Keoleian, G. (2000). Life cycle based sustainabilty indictors for assessment of the us food systems. (Master's thesis, Unviersity Of Michigan)Retrieved from http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS00-04.pdf "How the Global Oil Seed and Grain Trade Works" (PDF). Soyatech. Retrieved from www.soyatech.com/userfiles/file/tradeflow_manual(1).pdf "Growing Crush Limits Indias Soy Oil Imports" (PDF). Oilseeds:World Markets and Trade. United States Department of Agriculture. usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/.../oilseed.../oilseedtrade-03-10-2011.pdf Kanyama, A., & Faist, M. (2000). Energy use in the food sector. (Master's thesis, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden)Retrieved from http://mmm.comuv.com/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2010/06/Energy-use-in-the-food-sector-Carlsson-Kanyama-and-Fiest.pdf Marsh, K. (2007). Food packagingroles, materials, and environmental issues. Journal Of Food Sciences, Retrieved from http://www.ift.org/Knowledge-Center/Read-IFT-Publications/ScienceReports/Scientific-Status-Summaries/Editorial/Food-Packaging-and-Its-Environmental-Impact.aspx McEvoy, M (May 2013). Organics 101: can GMOs be used in organics? USDA David Pimentel and Mary Pimentel, "Energy Use in Fruit, Vegetable, and Forage Production", in "Food, Energy, and Society", ed. D. Pimentel, and M. Pimentel, revised edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO, 1996, pp. 131-147. Pimentel, D., and M. Pimentel (1996) Food Processing, Packaging, and Preparation, in "Food, Energy, and Society", ed. D. Pimentel, and M. Pimentel, revised edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO, pp. 186-201. Pimentel, D. & Pimentel, M. H. 2003, Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, vol. 78, pp. 660S-663S.v US Environmental Protection Agency, (2000). Hexane (110-54-3). Retrieved from website: http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/hlthef/hexane.html US Environmental Protection Agency, (1995). Vegetable oil processing (9.11.1-1). Retrieved from website: www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/../c9s11-1.pdf Wilder, A. "All About Gums." Eating Rules RSS. Retrieved from http://dressingcase24.rssing.com/browser.php?indx=12952847&item=2 World Health Organization (2000). Turning the Tide of Malnutrition: Responding to the challenge of the 21st Century. World Health Organization: Geneva

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi