When we cannot see everything, we see nothing
Classic beef steak is more impactful than veggie steak, by far, as its overall environmental impact is 10 times greater than that of animal steak.
This difference is not surprising when you consider that the production of meat leads to significant greenhouse gas emissions and that to produce 1 kg of beef, it actually takes 7 to 15 kg of additional agricultural products to feed the animal.
The conclusions of Glimpact's analysis, carried out according to the PEF method (adopted by the EC), are based on data from a representative sample of commonly observed products. Therefore, they do not take into account the specificities of production conditions or means of production.
Animal production is generally much more impactful than plant production, especially under the conditions of agricultural practices observed in Europe. In fact, buying a steak of meat implies producing not only the meat but also the raw materials needed to raise the livestock.
According to the PEF method adopted by the EC, the environmental impact should take into account 16 impact categories. It is defined by a score that aggregates the different results obtained for each impact by normalisation and weighting. This score is expressed in points (Pt) on a continuous scale, it allows products to be compared with each other.
Although these two products are based on radically different ingredients, the majority of their environmental impact comes from the production of the raw materials. It is worth looking at the figures, which are not misleading.
The graph below compares the overall environmental impact (per kilogram) of the conventional beef steak with that of the vegetable steak.
Inequivalent quantities, beef steak will have almost 10 times more impact than vegetable steak.
If we look at the distribution of the environmental impact over the whole life cycle, we can see that the majority comes from the production of raw materials.
The graph below shows the impact of common ingredients used in the production of steaks (plant and animal). Not surprisingly, beef stands out for its high environmental impact.
Indeed, beef production generates large quantities of methane, which is emitted during the digestion of ruminants. These emissions, which contribute greatly to climate change, are not present in the cultivation of plants.
This large difference can be explained by the fact that to produce 1 kg of beef, between 7 and 15 kg of food will be needed to feed the cattle, whereas all the ingredients of the vegetable steak are directly from agriculture.
Thus, obtaining one kg of meat needed to produce a beef steak indirectly requires additional kg of agricultural ingredients. These inputs in turn imply a greater occupation of land, which is added to that directly necessary for the cattle breeding.
In this, it is essential to consider the entire production perimeter of these two processed products.
However, there are levers to improve the impacts of these two products, starting with animal steak. Considering the two main sources of impact of meat production: the cow's feed and its methane emissions, two possibilities for improvement emerge.
Methane emissions come from what is known as enteric fermentation, the process of digestion by cows, and more generally by ruminants. Certain feeds help cattle digest, reducing fermentation in their stomachs and allowing them to emit less methane. Studies show that the use of flaxseed or oilseed supplements can significantly reduce methane emissions from cattle by 10-30%.
In conclusion, in terms of environmental impact, a steak of plant origin is much less impactful than a steak of animal origin, this is an objective scientific truth, but independently of the nutritional qualities of the two products. Indeed, in food matters, the nutritional dimension cannot be ignored, especially since an environmental benefit is not always compatible with health issues, which are so important! The vast question of reconciling respect for the environment and health is not a simple one, and to illustrate it, we advise you to watch the video of Hadrien Gonzales, a french journalist at Le Parisien and a brilliant contributor to the "Food Checking" concept. Stay tuned for the next episodes!
The environmental impact calculated does not take into account the use phase (refrigerated storage of the consumer, cooking, washing of utensils and dishes necessary for preparation). The results were reported per kilogram of boneless meat without taking into account the nutritional issues, which are not of the same nature as the environmental ones. This is the so-called functional unit for impact assessment. This definition is the most common and objective, but other units could be considered, which would in this case be much more questionable.
