the case for the vegetarian menu
I’ve been mostly* meat free since February 23, 2021.
Like I imagine happens to most environmentally inspired vegetarians, I vividly pictured a clip-art style steak during a guided meditation and knew that was the last time I could blame my lack of vegetarianism on my multi meat-eater husband. Since then, meat-wise, I have consumed the very occasional raw sushi roll, grilled salmon filet and approximately half dozen east coast oysters. In short, I’m not perfect and admittedly eat plenty of impossible burgers.
population and demand
Why does it matter, you ask? The global population is pacing to grow from a current 7.9 billion to 9.8 billion by 2050. Worldwide, food demand is set to increase by more than 50% - and developed countries' demand for animal-based foods is expected to rise by 70%. Yet today, hundreds of millions of people are food insecure - however, agriculture already uses almost half of the world’s vegetated land. Farming related land-use is currently responsible for over 25% of our worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
Individually, Americans eat well over 200 pounds of meat per year. Meat production (particularly beef) accelerates methane emissions (the worst of the greenhouse gases) and deforestation at a pace unsustainable to keep within the 1.5°C metric which is crucial to avoid the worst in climate disasters.
Current worldwide demand for meat and dairy alone can make us exceed critical levels of global warming. That makes shifting diets away from meat a critical tool in preventing global temperatures from rising above that 1.5°C.
emissions, beef + coffee
A November 2021 scientific study conducted by PLOS One found that non-vegetarian diets were associated with 59% higher emissions than vegetarian diets, with the difference driven by meat intake. Meat explained 32% of diet-related emissions; while 15% was beverage (dare I say: coffee is one of the larger emissions contributors, based on the massive need for production); 14% is from dairy; and 8% from baked goods. Also worth noting: men had 41% higher GHG emissions than women.
PLOS One is a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal published by the Public Library of Science since 2006.
Researchers built emissions profiles for 171 plant crops and 16 animal products, drawing info from over 200 countries. (For context, 75% of the world’s food comes from just 12 plants and 5 animal species.)
The study’s findings were consistent with a wealth of previous reviews which have found animal-based foods have the most significant negative environmental impacts, and most specifically, beef.
Sheerly projecting emissions of a singular person's annual beef consumption, assuming this person eats it 3-5x per week: their emissions just from eating beef (and nothing else) are equivalent to the following:
5 roundtrip flights from Chicago to Tulum
17 Tennis Court equivalent of agricultural land use
The equivalent of heating the average midwestern home for 255 days
Driving cross country from Chicago to LA and back again
the event entree scenario
When talking an event of 500 people, the difference in a dinner entree featuring tenderloin vs. vegetarian (including sides, dessert, wine, etc.) is an estimated 19.82kg of carbon per person (beef) vs. 2.84kg carbon (emissions). By strictly choosing to go vegetarian for this one meal you save your event 8.4 metric tons of carbon simply and easily - the equivalent emissions to 20,851 miles driven in the average car.
Once attendees understand the positive impact they can have on our dear planet earth by just embracing a plant based meal, we believe that they will be willing to dabble in vegetarianism to be a part of the important progress at hand. And, with any luck, maybe it will bring the introspection to ripple positive waves in their consumption mindset through the long term.
In any case, when talking meat on menus, less is very much more.
cover photo credit: @theparamountgroupchi
