Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

National food-plan-green-paper-submission-sep-12-e

9,426

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
9,426
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Submission in Response to Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry National Food Plan Green Paper“The urgent need for a general transition to a plant-based diet” Prepared by Paul Mahony Melbourne, Australia September 2012
  • 2. IntroductionI welcome the opportunity to submit a paper in response to the National Food Plan (NFP) greenpaper prepared by the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF).This paper focuses on the critical impact of animal agriculture on climate change. It alsoconsiders, in less detail: water usage; biodiversity loss; and land degradation.The key points are, firstly, that we will not overcome climate change without a general movetoward a plant-based diet, in addition to action on fossil fuels and non-CO2 climate forcingagents.Secondly, governments and others need to inform the community of the environmental benefitsto be derived from an appropriate diet.Thirdly, the pricing of animal agriculture products needs to incorporate costs which are currentlyexternalities, in that the pricing needs to fully account for the environmental costs of suchproducts.The submission includes material which has appeared in various articles and presentations Ihave prepared in recent years, as referred in the Further Reading section.New material in the submission includes charts showing the content of Australia’s overall foodproduction for 2010/11 in terms of certain key nutrients.Although researchers referred to in this paper and elsewhere have utilised a range ofapproaches to measuring the impact of food production on the environment (under variousconditions and with differing results), the findings almost invariably point to a continuum whichplaces a red meat and dairy based diet at one end (i.e. with adverse effects) and a completelyplant-based diet at another (i.e. with more favourable effects).Although fish and other seafood should also be avoided in order to cease the devastatingimpact of industrial fishing on our oceans, this submission does not address that issue.The submission also comments briefly on the question of health impacts of animal food products.“. . . compared to its economic performance, the environmental impacts of the livestock sector arenot being adequately addressed, despite the fact that major reductions in impact could beachieved at reasonable cost.The problem therefore lies mainly with institutional and political obstacles, and the lack ofmechanisms to provide environmental feedback, ensure that externalities are accounted for andembed the stewardship of common property resources into the sector.Why is this so? First, civil society seems to have an inadequate understanding of the scope of theproblem. Perhaps even among the majority of environmentalists and environmental policymakers, the truly enormous impact of the livestock sector on climate, biodiversity and water is notfully appreciated.” 1“Livestock’s Long Shadow”, United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization, November 2006No information in the submission is intended to constitute nutritional or health advice.
  • 3. Table of Contents1. The Climate Change Emergency.............................................................................. 32. Animal Agriculture’s Impact.................................................................................. 13 General........................................................................................................................ 13 Inherent Inefficiency................................................................................................... 16 Scale ........................................................................................................................... 18 Greenhouse Gases....................................................................................................... 19 Land Clearing ............................................................................................................. 28 Water Usage ............................................................................................................... 303. Nutritional Value of Australian Food Production .................................................. 374. Health Issues........................................................................................................... 475. Pricing..................................................................................................................... 496. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 50Further Reading .............................................................................................................. 51Appendix ........................................................................................................................ 52References ...................................................................................................................... 55Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 2
  • 4. 1. The Climate Change Emergency" . . . there is no doubt in my mind that [climate change] is the greatest problem confrontingmankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency. . . . Educationof the public is critical to ensure that they understand the dimensions of the tasks and theconsequences of failure."Professor David de Kretser, then Governor of Victoria, 20082In late 2011, after many years of warnings from climate scientists, we were faced with verydramatic news on climate change, including: • The extent of Arctic summer sea ice was reported to have been the second lowest on 3 record. • Russian scientists had reported "astonishing" and unprecedented releases of 4 methane from permafrost along the seabed of the Siberian Arctic Shelf. • The percentage increase in greenhouse gas emissions globally in 2010 was reported 5 to have been the highest on record by a significant margin. • The International Energy Agency reported that, without massive changes in energy infrastructure, "The world is on the brink of irreversible climate change . . . in five years global warming will hit a point of no return after which it will be impossible to 6 reverse the process."Paradoxically, and relevant to David de Kretser’s concerns about educating the public (seequotation above), media reporting of the issue had been waning in 2011 and prior years. Thefollowing chart depicts the extent of climate change reporting on the evening broadcast news 7in the United States by NBC, CBS and ABC.Figure 1: Nightly Broadcast News Coverage of Climate Change (NBC, CBS and ABC)Developments on climate change may have been alarming in 2011, but the situation hasworsened significantly in 2012.The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently announced that July 2012was the hottest month in the contiguous United States since record keeping began in 1895.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 3
  • 5. However, in a study of major media outlets, only 8.7% of television segments and 25.5% of 8print articles reported on the July heat waves in the context of climate change.Dramatic Reduction in Arctic Summer Sea IceAnother key development has been a dramatic fall in the extent of Arctic summer sea ice. Itis difficult to overstate the seriousness of the melting that has occurred in this years northernsummer.Figures 2 – 4 below show the extent of Arctic summer sea ice melting for many years,including 2012. This years melting has broken the previous record of 2007 by a significantmargin. To put that into context, we can consider some comments published in 2008 about 9the northern summer of 2007. • [Mark] Serreze [of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center] told the Guardian on 4 September: "Its amazing. Its simply fallen off a cliff and were still losing ice." • NSIDC research scientist Walt Meier told the Independent on 22 September that the 2007 ice extent was "the biggest drop from a previous record that weve ever had and its really quite astounding . . . Certainly weve been on a downward trend for the last thirty years or so, but this is really accelerating the trend." • The decline was 22 percent in two years, compared to 7 percent per decade between 1979 and 2005. • The problem was not only the declining area, but also the thickness of the ice. In the early 1960s, it was around 3.5 metres. By 2008, that had reduced to 1 metre, with half the reduction occurring in the previous seven years.As can be seen in Figures 2 - 4, the Arctic summer sea ice extent is reducing at what appearsto be an accelerating rate. That appears to be consistent with the exponential trend shown inFigure 5.The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported on 19 September, 2012:“On September 16, Arctic sea ice appeared to have reached its minimum extent for the yearof 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles). This is the lowest seasonalminimum extent in the satellite record since 1979 and reinforces the long-term downward 10trend in Arctic ice extent”Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 4
  • 6. Figure 2: Arctic Sea Ice Extent (Area of ocean with at least 15% ice)Figure 3: Arctic Sea Ice Extent for the month of September – 1979 - 2011Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 5
  • 7. Figure 4: Arctic Sea Ice Extent for the month of August – 1979 – 2012 11Figure 5: Exponential extrapolation of the trend in sea ice reductionThe exponential trending, indicating a potential loss of all summer Arctic sea ice by 2015, isconsistent with recent comments from Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics atCambridge University. On 30 August, 2012, David Spratt cited an article from the previousday in The Scotsman, which stated:"Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, who was brandedalarmist after he first detected substantial thinning of sea ice in 1990, said: The entire icecover is now on the point of collapse. The extra open water already created by the retreatingPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 6
  • 8. ice allows bigger waves to be generated by storms, which are sweeping away the survivingice. It is truly the case that it will be all gone by 2015. The consequences are enormous and 12represent a huge boost to global warming.”The implications of the Arctic summer sea ice retreating include the warming of exposed darkocean, which absorbs solar radiation rather than reflecting it back to space. This leads tomore warming and more melting of the sea ice in a self-perpetuating process.The exponential trend (Figure 5) that reflects such feedback mechanisms, is based on datafrom the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) at the PolarScience Center.As implied earlier, it is not just the area of Arctic sea ice that is diminishing, but the overallvolume, including thickness. The chart below shows that the volume this year is 79% below 13the volume of 1979.Figure 6: Minimum PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume to 25 August 2012Why is this reduction in the extent of Arctic sea ice a problem? • “The danger is that an ice-free state in the Arctic summer will kick the climate system into run-on warming and create an aberrant new climate state many, many degrees hotter . . . The Arctic sea-ice is the first domino and it is falling fast.” Spratt, D and Lawson, D, “Bubbling our way to the Apocalypse”, Rolling Stone, 14 November 2008, pp. 53-55 (David Spratt is the co-author, with Philip Sutton, of “Climate Code Red: the case for emergency action”, Scribe, 2008)Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 7
  • 9. • “The extra heating of the Arctic basin if all the floating ice melted would be 80 watts per square metre, which averaged over the whole Earth is an increase of one watt per square metre. To put this in perspective, the extra heat which will be absorbed when the floating ice has gone is nearly 70 per cent of the heating caused by all the carbon dioxide pollution now present.” Dr James Lovelock, “The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A final warning”, Penguin, 2009, p. 29 • “It is difficult to imagine how the Greenland ice sheet could survive if Arctic sea ice is lost entirely in the warm season.” Dr James Hansen, “Storms of my grandchildren”, Bloomsbury, 2009, p. 164Greenland Ice SheetAs implied above, the warming of the Arctic Ocean has dramatic impacts on the Greenlandice sheet, adjacent to the Arctic sea ice.On that ice sheet, lakes are forming, which disappear down moulins (craters) to the bottom, adistance of more that two kilometres in many cases. The water cascading through the moulinswarms the ice sheet and lubricates the base, contributing to further melting. There are manyhundreds, possibly thousands, of moulins on the ice sheet. Here is an example from a 2011expedition by researchers from the Cryospheric Processes Laboratory, City College, NewYork:Figure 7: Moulin on Greenland’s ice sheetThe researcher who provided the above image, Professor Marco Tedesco, recently reportedthat melting over the Greenland ice sheet had shattered the seasonal record four weeksbefore the close of the melting season. "With more yet to come in August, this years overallmelting will fall way above the old records. Thats a goliath year - the greatest melt since 15satellite recording began in 1979."The dynamic wet melting process currently occurring on Greenland also appears to befollowing a non-linear trend, which is not accounted for in the relatively modest projections ofPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 8
  • 10. sea level rise published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose 16fourth assessment report projected sea-level rise of 0.19 – 0.59 metres by 2100.The IPCC’s projection only allows for certain short feedback mechanisms, e.g. changes inwater vapour; clouds; and sea ice. It does not allow for slow feedbacks, e.g. ice sheetdynamics; changes in vegetation cover; permafrost melting; and carbon-cycle feedbacks.Tim Flannery, Australian Climate Change Commissioner and former Australian of the Year,has said the IPCC is “painfully conservative” because it “works by consensus and includesgovernment representatives from the United States, China and Saudi Arabia, all of whom 17must assent to every word of every finding”. 18In “Storms of my grandchildren” (2009), James Hansen said:“Greenland is now losing mass at a rate equivalent to 250 cubic kilometers of ice per year,and Antarctica is losing about half as much mass each year. The rate of ice sheet mass losshas doubled during the present decade. Sea level is now going up at a rate of about 3centimeters per decade. But if ice sheet disintegration continues to double every decade, wewill be faced with sea level rise of several meters this century.”Dr Hansen is the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and AdjunctProfessor of Earth Sciences at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. He became widelyknown following his testimony on climate change to Congress in the 1980s that helped raisebroad awareness of the global warming issue. Dr. Hansen was elected to the NationalAcademy of Sciences in 1995 and, in 2001, received the Heinz Award for environment andthe American Geophysical Union’s Roger Revelle Medal. He received the World WildlifeFederation’s Conservation Medal from the Duke of Edinburgh in 2006 and was designated byTime Magazine as one of the world’s 100 most influential people in 2006. In 2007 Dr. Hansenwon the Dan David Prize in the field of Quest for Energy, the Leo Szilard Award of theAmerican Physical Society for Use of Physics for the Benefit of Society, and the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science Award for Scientific Freedom and 19Responsibility.Reconfirming earlier comments, Dr Hansen and fellow researcher Makiko Sato said in a 2011 20paper (my bold formatting): • Earth is poised to experience strong amplifying polar feedbacks in response to moderate global warming. • Thus goals to limit human-made warming to 2° are not sufficient – they are C prescriptions for disaster. • Ice sheet disintegration is nonlinear, spurred by amplifying feedbacks. • We suggest that ice sheet mass loss, if warming continues unabated, will be characterized better by a doubling time for mass loss rate than by a linear trend. • Satellite gravity data, though too brief to be conclusive, are consistent with a doubling time of 10 years or less, implying the possibility of multi-meter sea level rise this century.This trend has been driven primarily by the increasing temperatures at higher latitudes, whichfar exceed the global average.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 9
  • 11. 21Here is how it appeared in November, 2010, relative to the period 1951-1980:Figure 8: NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (a)Figure 9: NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (b)Note that the temperature changes are not uniform in the above images. However, there is anoverall net warming, with significant warming in the critical northern latitudes.The Greenland ice sheet is over 2 kilometres thick and (as indicated above) was reported in2009 to be losing more than 250 cubic kilometres of ice each year, after neither losing norgaining significant mass as recently as the 1990’s. 250 cubic kilometres is equivalent to 0.71metres of water covering an area the size of Germany. Total loss of the Greenland ice sheet 22would equate to around 7 metres of sea level rise.The following image aims to add some context to the extent of ice sheet loss as of 2009.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 10
  • 12. Figure 10: Depiction of annual reduction in Greenland’s ice sheet volume in the context of an area the size of Germany Based on ice mass loss of 250 cubic km per annum 0.71 metresWe have little time to rectify the damage that has occurred or the resulting atmospheric andplanetary processes.Can we rely on governments to allow for scenarios such as those outlined by James Hansen?Based on a recent experience in Victoria, the answer may be “no”.On 6 June, 2012, The Age newspaper reported: “The Baillieu government will wind back rulesmaking new property developments in seaside towns plan for sea-level rises caused byclimate change, arguing they have hampered rural growth. . . . The changes, to be brought inlater this month, will now require 20 centimetres of sea-level rise by 2040 to be considered innew urban development in coastal towns such as Lakes Entrance, Port Lonsdale and Port 23Fairy.”The figure of 20 centimetres is at the bottom end of conservative projections released by theIPCC.Some less obvious risks involved in rising sea-levels: According to the Australian Climate Commission, very modest rises in sea-level, for example, 50 cm, can lead to very high multiplying factors – sometimes 100 times or more – in the frequency of occurrence of high sea-level events. A “high sea-level event” is described as an inundation event triggered by a combination of sea-level 24 rise, a high tide and a storm surge or excessive run-off. According to Dr Andrew Glikson, earth and paleoclimate scientist at Australian National University, further warming of the Greenland ice sheet and the west and east Antarctic ice sheets may lead to pulses of ice-melt water which will cool adjacent ocean basins. The bulk of the continents will continue to heat, due to a rise in greenhouse gases, feedbacks from fires, methane release from permafrost and reduction of CO2 intake by warming oceans. The resultant ocean-land temperature polarity generates storms, reflected in the title of James Hansen’s book, “Storms of 25 my grandchildren”.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 11
  • 13. Related to the previous point, James Hansen reports that a ten percent increase in 26 wind speeds increases the destructive potential of the wind by about one third. The warming of the Arctic also appears to be contributing to “extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat 27 waves” in mid latitudes.The following words from former international oil, gas and coal industry executive, Ian Dunlop,highlight the gravity of our current predicament (with this writer’s bullets and bold 28formatting): • Perhaps the greatest flaw in the climate debate has been our inability, or refusal, to address risk and uncertainty realistically. • Scientists are giving increasingly urgent warnings on the mounting evidence of human-induced warming and the need for rapid carbon emission reductions. • Officialdom chooses to ignore these warnings, preferring policy based on ‘political realism’, shorthand for hoping the problem will go away. • Business, supposedly the experts on risk management, should take leadership, but have abrogated any responsibility, given that realistic action will require a fundamental redesign of the economic system, undermining established vested interests. • The result is that nobody is seriously addressing the strategic risks to which we are exposed. • The history of the last two decades has demonstrated that conventional politics and business are incapable of handling this issue in a realistic manner. • Leadership is totally lacking in both arenas; global and national institutions are failing here, just as they are failing to address the financial crisis – on both counts economic growth is the problem, not the solution. • Climate change is now a far bigger risk than any financial crisis and yet the real effort devoted to managing it is miniscule in comparison.Ian Dunlop chaired the Australian Coal Association in 1987-88, chaired the AustralianGreenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading from 1998-2000 and was CEO ofthe Australian Institute of Company Directors from 1997-2001. He is a Director of Australia21,Chairman of Safe Climate Australia, a Member of the Club of Rome and Fellow of the Centrefor Policy Development.Similar concerns have been expressed by Dr Andrew Glikson (my capital letter formatting):“Contrarian claims by sceptics, misrepresenting direct observations in nature and ignoring thelaws of physics, have been adopted by neoconservative political parties. A corporate mediamaintains a ‘balance’ between facts and fiction. The best that governments seem to do isdevise cosmetic solutions, or promise further discussions, while time is running out. GOODPLANETS ARE HARD TO COME BY.”Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 12
  • 14. 2. Animal Agriculture’s ImpactGeneralWhile DAFF’s NFP green paper acknowledges threats to Australia’s food supply fromenvironmental problems, including climate change, it generally fails to acknowledge thenegative role that food production plays in relation to those environmental problems. Withinthe food production system, animal agriculture is by far the most significant contributor to theproblem.The key interrelated issues are: gross and inherent inefficiencies; scale; deforestation;greenhouse gas emissions; and water usage, all of which are referred to in more detail withinthis section.Some recognition of animal agriculture’s impact can be seen here: 29United Nations Environment Programme:"Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growthincreasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look foralternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possiblewith a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.""Animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand orcement, plastics or metals. Biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as [burning]fossil fuels." (Professor Edgar Hertwich, lead author)Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health 30Organization: :“[Animal food products place] an undue demand on land, water, and other resources requiredfor intensive food production, which makes the typical Western diet not only undesirable fromthe standpoint of health but also environmentally unsustainable.”Henning Steinfeld, United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization, 2006“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmentalproblems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.” 31Dr James Hansen, Director of Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA“If you eat further down on the food chain rather than animals, which have produced manygreenhouse gases, and used much energy in the process of growing that meat, you canactually make a bigger contribution in that way than just about anything. So that, in terms ofindividual action, is perhaps the best thing you can do.” 32Dr Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change“Please eat less meat - meat is a very carbon intensive commodity.”Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 13
  • 15. Here are further examples recognising animal agriculture’s detrimental impacts:1. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: 33 The UN’s Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) says livestock production is one of the major causes of the worlds most pressing environmental problems, including (in addition to global warming and air pollution): loss of biodiversity; land degradation; and water pollution Some key points from the FAO on biodiversity are: According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) Report (2005b), the most important direct drivers of biodiversity loss are habitat change; climate change; invasive alien species; overexploitation; and pollution. Livestock play an important role in the current biodiversity crisis, as they contribute directly to all these drivers of biodiversity loss, at the local and global level. Livestock-related land use and land-use change modify or destroy ecosystems that are the habitats for given species. Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are affected by emissions into the environment (nutrient and pathogen discharge in marine and freshwater ecosystems, ammonia emissions and acid rain). The sector also directly affects biodiversity through invasive alien species (the livestock themselves and diseases for which they may be vectors) and overexploitation, for example through overgrazing and pasture plants.2. Peter Singer and Jim Mason: Australian ethicist and Princeton University Professor, Peter Singer, and co-author Jim 34 Mason, have commented as follows on land degradation : The desire to create grazing land for cattle and sheep has been a major factor in clearing forest and bushland all over the world. In Australia, since European settlement, 13 per cent of the land has been completely cleared of native vegetation, mostly for grazing animals, and a much larger area has been severely damaged by grazing. 35 According to the World Resources Institute , overgrazing is the largest single cause of land degradation, world-wide. Much of this degradation occurs in the semi-arid areas used for cattle and sheep grazing in countries like Australia and the United States. Cattle are heavy animals with hard hooves, big appetites, and a digestive system that produces a lot of manure. Turned loose on fragile, semi-arid environments, they can soon devastate a landscape that has not evolved to cope with them. Professor Michael Archer (cited by Singer and Mason), Professor of Biological Sciences and Dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of New South Wales, and a former director of the Australian Museum, has pointed out that Australian agriculture contributes about 3 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product, but degrades over 61% of Australia’s lands.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 14
  • 16. 3. CSIRO and University of Sydney – Balancing Act Report: The Balancing Act Report by the CSIRO and the University of Sydney showed that 92% of the total land degradation in Australia at that time was due to the beef, sheep and dairy 36 industries. The other 132 economic sectors were responsible for the remaining 8%.4. ABARE: According to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), “Beef production is widespread across Australia. In northern Australia, production is based mainly on native pastures on large properties; in the southern states, smaller properties with a high degree of pasture improvement predominate. Extensive grazing by sheep and cattle occupies approximately 60 per cent of the rangelands, which in turn 37 represent about 80 per cent of Australia’s land area”. Those comments indicate that grazing, with all its destructive qualities (and after allowing for grazing which occurs outside the rangelands), almost certainly occurs across more than 50% of the continent. That point has been confirmed by DAFF’s NFP green paper, which states on pages 59 and 60: Over half of Australia’s land is used for agricultural production comprising more than 59 per cent (457 million hectares) of the Australian continent in 2006 Livestock grazing on natural vegetation and modified pastures is the dominant agricultural activity by area accounting for about 56 per cent or 428 million hectares of Australia. Other key agricultural uses, such as broadacre cropping (27 million hectares or 3.5 per cent) and horticulture (0.5 million hectares or 0.1 per cent) occupy a much smaller proportion of the land area. Intensive uses, which include intensive horticulture (such as glasshouses) and animal production, manufacturing, urban areas, transportation, mining and waste, occupied only 0.4 per cent (3 million hectares). The remaining areas (approximately 37 per cent or 283 million hectares) are allocated to nature conservation, protected areas including Indigenous uses, and other natural areas with minimal production use.5. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency A study by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency reported that a global transition to a completely animal free diet is estimated to reduce climate change mitigation costs by around 80%. Removing meat from the diet would reduce the costs by around 70%. The report’s abstract states: “By using an integrated assessment model, we found a global food transition to less meat, or even a complete switch to plant-based protein food to have a dramatic effect on land use. Up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned, resulting in a large carbon uptake from regrowing vegetation. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide emission would be reduced 38 substantially.”6. Stockholm International Water Institute Very recently, scientists from the Stockholm International Water Institute reported that a dramatic reduction in animals as a food source may be necessary to secure world food 39 supplies due to water shortages.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 15
  • 17. One can ask why organisations such as Oxfam and World Vision continue their programs thatenable well-meaning donors to supply animals to citizens of impoverished nations.Inherent InefficiencyIt takes many kilograms of plant-based food to produce one kilogram of animal-based food ofcomparable nutritional value, with significant impacts on energy inputs, emissions, waterusage and land usage.The figures vary depending on the animal involved, the source of its food, climatic conditionsand the like. However, whether it requires two or twenty kilograms of plant-based food toproduce one kilogram of animal-based food, the inefficiencies are startling. That isparticularly so when an almost uniform economic creed around the world for decades hasbeen the need for increased efficiency in production, using the mantra of productivity growth.An example is the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010 publication “Productivity and 40Progress”.The following diagram is based on figures outlined in a paper presented at the 2002 BeefImprovement Federation Annual Meeting in Omaha, USA. That paper indicated that it 41required around 13 pounds of grain, fed to cattle, to produce one pound of meat.Figure 11: Comparative Efficiency of Different Food Sources (1)The diagram demonstrates the fact that, for any given quantity of plant-based food, far morepeople can be fed if that food goes directly to them, rather than via the digestive system of ananimal.Looking at it another way, if we want to feed the same number of people using eitherproduction system, the plant based approach will require far fewer resources than thelivestock alternative.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 16
  • 18. Figure 12: Comparative Efficiency of Different Food Sources (2)The additional resources required include: land, with clearing for grazing or feed crop production releasing carbon dioxide and creating an ongoing loss of carbon sequestration; nitrogen based fertilizer producing nitrous oxide (around 300 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide); fugitive methane emissions from fertilizer production; emissions from farming and transportation; pesticides, herbicides and antibiotics; water used and polluted, including oceanic dead zones from nitrogen run-off.Two further measures of livestock’s inherent inefficiency are: 42(a) Information reported by Dr David Pimentel, Cornell University, USA in 2003: The US livestock population consumes more than 7 times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population. (US Department of Agriculture, 2001. Agricultural statistics, Washington, DC) The amount of grains fed to US livestock is sufficient to feed about 840 million people who follow a plant-based diet. (Dr David Pimentel, Cornell University, “Livestock production and energy use”, Cleveland CJ, ed. Encyclopedia of energy (in press). (Cited 2003) 43 We now have more than one billion under-nourished people in the world. Quite apart from the horrendous environmental impacts of livestock production, the willingness of thePaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 17
  • 19. wealthy to allow others to starve while plant production is channelled through livestock is morally repugnant. 44(b) Net Primary Productivity: Two teams of Austrian researchers have shown that humans in 2000 appropriated 23.8 percent of the planet’s net primary productivity or annual plant growth. Of that amount, around 30 percent was used for paper production, construction and the like. 58 percent was fed to livestock and supplied 17 percent of human-kind’s global food calories. Only 12 percent was consumed directly by humans, providing 83 percent of calories. If an individual business were operating with the level of efficiency demonstrated by the Austrian teams’ work, it would almost certainly be closed or its methods radically overhauled. How is it that we allow these levels of inefficiency in such a massive and critically important operation? The image below depicts the comparison. 45Figure 13: Comparative Efficiency of Different Food Sources (3)ScaleIn a country of 22 million people, Australians in 2010/11 slaughtered, for human 46consumption: Cows: 8.1 million Sheep: 23.2 million Pigs: 4.6 million Chickens 550 millionGlobally, we slaughter around 60 billion land animals each year, including over 50 billion 47chickens. This massive scale leads to the over-utilisation of resources referred to earlier.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 18
  • 20. Greenhouse Gases1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsThe UN FAO’s “Livestock’s Long Shadow” report of 2006 indicated that livestock wereresponsible for around 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions, which was significantly 48more than global transport systems.2. World Watch Institute:A report issued by the World Watch Institute in late 2009 and written by the former leadenvironmental adviser to the World Bank and another World Bank colleague, suggested that 49livestock are responsible for 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions.It highlighted the following issues in the context of the UN FAO’s “Livestocks Long Shadow”report: 20 year “global warming potential” (GWP) on methane (Refer to subsequent comments.) Land use, including foregone sequestration on land previously cleared Livestock respiration overwhelming photosynthesis in absorbing carbon Increased livestock production since 2002 Corrections in documented under-counting More up to date emissions figures Corrections for use of Minnesota for source data Re-alignment of sectoral information Fluorocarbons for extended refrigeration Cooking at higher temperature and for longer periods Disposal of waste Production, distribution and disposal of by-products and packaging Carbon-intensive medical treatment of livestock-related illnessEven removing the respiration factor, livestock would be responsible for around 43% ofemissions.Some key issues in relation to the report are:(a) Land use, including foregone sequestration on land previously cleared:The World Watch Institute report highlighted the fact that Livestocks Long Shadow did not allowfor foregone sequestration on land cleared in the years prior to the reporting period. Australia’sNational Greenhouse Inventory also does not allow for such foregone sequestration in any of itsemissions figures. Furthermore, the Australian inventory reports livestock-related land clearingunder the “land use, land use change and forestry” category (LULUCF), rather than agriculture orlivestock, meaning that livestock’s impact is understated.The authors of the World Watch Institute report suggest the possibility of allowing land that hasbeen cleared for livestock grazing or feed crop production to regenerate as forest, therebymitigating “as much as half (or even more) of anthropogenic GHGs” [greenhouse gases].Alternatively, they suggest that the land could be used to grow crops for direct humanconsumption or crops that could be converted to biofuels, thereby reducing our reliance on coal.They have used the biofuel scenario in their calculations.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 19
  • 21. (b) 20-year global warming potential (GWP):The World Watch Institute report used a 20-year GWP for methane (see subsequentcomments), which may be more valid than the 100-year figure used by the UN FAO andmost other reporting bodies, including Australia’s Department of Climate Change and EnergyEfficiency. That is because methane, a critical factor in livestock’s greenhouse effects,generally breaks down in the atmosphere in 9–12 years. Accordingly, a 100-year GWP(which shows the average impact over a period of 100 years) greatly understates its shorter-term impact.Although methane may have a shorter life than carbon dioxide (which remains in theatmosphere for many hundreds of years), its impact can be long term if it contributes to usreaching tipping points that result in positive feedback loops with potentially irreversible andcatastrophic consequences.On the positive side, the relatively short term nature of methane’s impact means that actionon livestock production can be one of the most effective steps available to us in dealing withclimate change.3. Prof. Frank Mitloehner:Prof. Frank Mitloehner of University of California, Davis, has challenged various findings ofthe UN FAO’s “Livestock’s Long Shadow” report. The following guest post from the websiteof Adelaide University’s head of climate science, Prof. Barry Brook, relates to the work ofProf. Mitloehner. 50Extract from "Livestock and Climate Change - Status Update", 17/1/11, by Geoff Russell :“The livestock industry has countered LLS [the UN FAOs "Livestocks Long Shadow" report]with all manner of rubbish. For example the NSW Farmer’s Association ran a line whichconfused US figures with global figures and left out nitrous oxide emissions altogether. Muchof this confusion comes from one Frank Mitloehner who has been trumpeting a 3 percentfigure at any journalist who will listen for some time now. While I’m sure Associate ProfessorMitloehner knows what he’s talking about, journalists and NSW Farmer’s Association peopletend to be easily confused.Livestock methane emissions in the US are indeed about 3 percent of US emissions and arewell below the 14 percent global average figure of LLS … about half of which was nitrousoxide as we saw in the first table.It is common for US authors to confuse the US with the entire planet, but US livestockmethane emissions are below average for a number of unsurprising reasons:1. US cattle are predominantly grain fed (producing less methane) than cattle on pasture.2. The US ratio of cattle to people is about 1 to 3 compared to 1 to 1 in Brazil and well above 1 to 1 in Australia.3. US methane emissions from garbage are huge. In Australia, by comparison, and we are not noted for frugality, our garbage methane emissions are 1/6th of our livestock emissions. In the US, methane from garbage exceeds livestock methane.4. The US imports about 10 percent (net) of its beef and almost all of its sheep meat … not that they eat much. So the emissions from that beef don’t appear in US figures.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 20
  • 22. 5. Lastly, US advertisers and fast food chains may portray their home country as a hamburger culture, but Americans actually eat twice as much chicken as beef and almost no sheep meat at all. Australian ruminant meat intake is double that of the US.It’s not so much that US livestock emissions are small, but that they are swamped by otherprofligate consumption emissions.”4. Percentage of Emissions:The emissions of different gases can be aggregated by converting them to carbon dioxideequivalents (CO2-e). They are converted by multiplying the mass of emissions by theappropriate global warming potentials (GWPs). GWPs represent the relative warming effectof a unit mass of the gas when compared with the same mass of CO2 over a specific period.A 20-year GWP is particularly important when considering the impact of livestock, becausemethane, a critical factor in livestock’s greenhouse effects, generally breaks down in theatmosphere in 9 – 12 years. Accordingly, a 100-year GWP (which shows the average impactover a period of 100 years) greatly understates methane’s shorter-term impact.For methane, the GWPs used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) are 21 for 100 years and 72 for 20 years. The UN Food & Agriculture Organizationused a GWP of 23 for the 100 year time horizon in its 2006 “Livestock’s Long Shadow” report.Figure 14: Global Warming Potential (GWP) of Methane Most CO2-e measures of methane are based on a period of 100 years. GWP of methane over 100 years is 21. 12 yrs 20 yrs 100 yrs Most of the methane breaks down within 12 years and is therefore non-existent over the final 88 years. GWP of methane over 20 years is 72. This more accurately reflects its shorter-term impact. Short-term impacts become long-term if they contribute to us reaching tipping points.Based on a 20-year GWP, livestock in Australia produce more CO2-equivalent emissions 51than all our coal-fired power stations combined.Although methane may have a shorter life than carbon dioxide (which remains in theatmosphere for many hundreds of years), its impact can be long term if it contributes to usreaching tipping points that result in positive feedback loops with potentially irreversible andcatastrophic consequences. Other impacts of livestock production, such as deforestation foranimal grazing, can have similarly devastating results.An example of a tipping point is the thawing of permafrost (frozen land) in Russia, Canada,Alaska and elsewhere, which causes the permafrost to release massive amounts of methane.More methane means more warming, more permafrost thawing, more methane release andPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 21
  • 23. so on. This leads to runaway climate change, which no longer depends on emissionsgenerated by humankind.The remaining comments in this section are based on a 100-year GWP, which understateslivestock’s short-term impact. However, relative comparisons with other sectors can still bemade that undoubtedly show the major effect of the livestock industry on the warming of ourplanet’s atmosphere. iThe greenhouse gas emissions intensity of carcass beef in 1999 (the latest available figures) 52was more than twice that of aluminium smelting. To add some perspective, at the time thecomparisons were produced, aluminium smelting consumed 16% of Australia’s (mainly coal- 53fired) electricity while our annual tonnage of beef production was around 10% higher than 54 & 55that of aluminium. . The emissions intensity of various products can be depicted asfollows:Figure 15: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity Based on conservative 100 year GWP GHG Emissions Intensity (kg of GHG per kg of product) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Wheat Other Sugar Cement, Steel Alumin- Other non- Wool Sheep Beef grains lime, etc ium ferrous meatIn absolute terms, GHG emissions in Australia from beef alone are nearly double those of allnon-ferrous metals, including aluminium, as illustrated in the following chart from the 7Australian Greenhouse Office’s National Greenhouse Inventory:i Emissions intensity measures the tonnes of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases per tonne of commodity produced.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 22
  • 24. Figure 16: Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Absolute Terms 56The following comments in respect of aluminium’s energy usage add further perspective: “To phrase it in terms of the industry joke, aluminium is congealed electricity.” Mining Weekly.com “Aluminium is the ultimate proxy for energy” Marius Kloppers, BHP Billiton CEOResearchers at the University of Chicago have found that converting from a typical Westerndiet to a plant-based diet is 50% more effective in reducing GHG emissions than changing 57one’s car from a conventional sedan to a hybrid.A Swedish study has provided GHG emissions intensity figures for a wide range of foods,including legumes, fruit and vegetables, commodities which are often overlooked in reports onthis subject. It included CO2-e emissions involved in farming, transportation, processing, 58retailing, storage and preparation.Some key points from the study were as follows: Beef is the least climate efficient way to produce protein, less efficient than vegetables that are not recognised for their high protein content, such as green beans and carrots. Its emissions intensity ("Beef: domestic, fresh, cooked") is 30, as shown in the following chart, which compares it to various other products:Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 23
  • 25. Figure 17: Emissions intensity of various food products Carrots: domestic, fresh 35 Potatoes: cooked, domestic Honey Whole wheat: domestic, cooked 30 Apples: fresh, overseas by boat Soybeans: cooked, overseas by boat 25 Milk: domestic, 4% fat kg CO2-e per kg of product Sugar: domestic Italian pasta: cooked 20 Oranges: fresh, overseas by boat Rice: cooked Green beans: South Europe, boiled 15 Herring: domestic, cooked Vegetables: frozen, overseas by boat, boiled 10 Eggs: Swedish, cooked Rapeseed oil: from Europe Chicken: fresh, domestic, cooked 5 Cod: domestic, cooked Pork: domestic, fresh, cooked Cheese: domestic 0 Tropical fruit: fresh, overseas by plane Food Item Beef: domestic, fresh, cooked Stated another way, per kilogram of GHG emissions produced, carrots have more protein than beef. By the same measure, wheat has around thirteen times and soy beans around ten times more protein than beef, as demonstrated by the following chart:Figure 18: Protein content per kilogram of greenhouse gas emissions 180 Whole wheat domestic, cooked Herring, domestic 160 Soya beans, cooked, overseas by boat Grams of Protein per KG of GHG Emissions 140 Eggs, domestic Chicken, fresh, domestic 120 Italian pasta, cooked 100 Potatoes, cooked, domestic Milk, domestic, 4% fat 80 Pork, domestic, fresh 60 Cheese, domestic Cod, domestic 40 Rice, cooked 20 Carrots, domestic, fresh Green beans, imported 0 Beef, domestic, fresh Food Item It is more "climate efficient" to produce protein from vegetable sources than from animal sources. The emissions intensity of fruit and vegetables is usually less than or equal to 2.5, even if there is a significant amount of processing and transportation. Products transported by aeroplane are an exception, because emissions may be as large as for certain meats.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 24
  • 26. Some examples in regard to fruit: the emissions intensity figures are 0.82 and 1.2 for "Apples: fresh, overseas by boat" and "Oranges: fresh, overseas by boat" respectively. (Refer to the table below for emissions intensity figures for Australian fruit and vegetables.) The emissions intensity of foods rich in carbohydrates, such as potatoes, pasta and wheat is less than 1.1. For "Soybeans: cooked, overseas by boat", the figure is 0.92.As a comparison to the Swedish study to the extent that it reported on fruit and vegetables, Ihave derived an overall emissions intensity figure of 0.1 for such items produced in Australia.The figure has been calculated from: (a) a measure of tonnes of 2002 CO2-e emissions per$m of revenue from Appendix D of the Department of Climate Changes 2008 CPRS GreenPaper; and (b) revenue and tonnage figures for 2002 from the Australian HorticulturalStatistics Handbook 2004.Wherever used in the relevant publications, I have converted tonnes to kilograms for thepurpose of our table.Details are as follows: Emissions Intensity of Fruit and Vegetables in Australia Description Kg CO2-e per $m of Rev Total Kg produced Kg CO2-e per 60 61 $m of 2002 Emissions 2002 Kg produced revenue 59 2002Fruit & 86,000 5,975 513,850,000 5,346,154,000 0.10VegetablesFinally, to properly account for CO2-e emissions, we need to ask what we do with the energywhich, according to the National Greenhouse Inventory, is the most significant contributor.The answer is that we use it in industry, in agriculture and in domestic homes. In order toproperly break out the use of energy within Australia, and determine which industries use howmuch when all their inputs and outputs are taken into account, another kind of economicreport is required.The CSIRO and the University of Sydney have produced such a report, entitled "Balancing 62Act – A Triple Bottom-Line Analysis of the Australian Economy". The report analysed 135sectors of the Australian economy, focusing on environmental, social and financial indicators.The report showed that when end-use was considered, animal industries at the time wereresponsible for over 30% of total greenhouse emissions in Australia, as follows: Industry Sector Megatonnes Percent CO2-e Beef Cattle 122.5 23.6 Sheep & Shorn Wool 23.9 4.61 Dairy Cattle & Milk 8.8 1.7 Pigs 1.3 0.25Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 25
  • 27. Industry Sector Megatonnes Percent CO2-e Commercial Fishing 0.68 0.13 Meat Products 0.68 0.13 Other Dairy Products 0.59 0.11 Poultry & Eggs 0.58 0.11 Total 159.03 30.64Australia’s National Greenhouse Inventory for 2008 indicated that electricity generationrepresented 37 per cent of Australias emissions, compared to 10.7 per cent for livestock.The report indicated that livestock’s emissions were 59 mt. The livestock figure was basedsolely on enteric fermentation (which causes methane to be released, primarily throughbelching) and manure management (which releases methane and nitrous oxide).Adding emissions from livestock-related deforestation and savanna burning increaseslivestock’s emissions to 106 mt or 18% of the revised total.Using that figure and applying a 20-year GWP, the final percentage increases to 30%.Assumptions: 63 85.1% of forest clearing was for livestock grazing ; and 64 56.9% of savanna burning was for livestock .In respect of the first assumption, it is helpful to note that the National Greenhouse Inventory’sland use change estimate for 2008 includes emissions and removals from all forest landscleared that year as well as ongoing emissions from the loss of biomass and soil carbon onlands cleared over the previous twenty years.5. Comparison with Coal-fired Power:Applying a 100-year GWP, Australia’s 2008 National Greenhouse Inventory reported 55.6tonnes of CO2-equivalent (CO2-e) methane emissions from enteric fermentation by livestock.That equates to 190 tonnes of CO2-e emissions using a 20-year GWP, which is more thanthe emissions from coal-fired electricity generation (Figure 7, page 8). Such an approach was 65utilised in a late 2007 article in Australasian Science titled “Meat’s Carbon Hoofprint”.The comparison only takes into account livestock’s methane emissions, and not:(i) nitrous oxide emissions from manure management;(ii) deforestation for grazing and feed crop production; or(iii) savanna burning for livestock pasture and grazing; which is referred to in item 3 above. 666. Comments from the Climate Institute (with my underline for emphasis):“It has been knows for decades that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Up to one thirdof the warming during the twentieth century may be attributable to methane. Since theeighteenth century, methane concentrations have risen 2.5 fold even as natural sources suchPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 26
  • 28. as wetlands and wildlife declined. According to ice core analyses, concentrations are thehighest they have been for around 650,000 years. For reasons poorly understood, methanelevels stabilised for several years during the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, possibly as a resultof a decline in the rate of tropical deforestation. In recent years, however, methaneconcentrations have resumed their rapid rise.”“Of the global anthropogenic sources of methane, ruminant livestock is one of the biggest.Fugitive emissions from coal mining, vegetation burning and other industries, as well aslandfill sites, are also significant sources. It is worth noting that, globally, numbers of ruminantlivestock continue to climb as world population and incomes - and hence demand – rise.”“While it is true that atmospheric methane is short-lived, it is continually being ‘topped up’ and,even more significantly, is some seventy-two times more potent than carbon dioxide whenmeasured in a twenty-year timeframe. Suggestions that methane from livestock is not asignificant greenhouse gas, while comforting to vested interests, are not based in science.”Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 27
  • 29. Land ClearingIn Australia, since European settlement, we have cleared nearly 1 million square kilometres ofour 7.7 million square kilometre land mass. Of the cleared land, around 70 percent has 67resulted from animal agriculture, including meat, dairy and wool.Figure 19: Land cleared in AustraliaIn Queensland alone, from 1988 to 2008, around 86,000 square kilometres of land was 68cleared, 91% of which (78,000 square kilometres) was for livestock pasture. If we were todraw a line 10 kilometres east of Melbourne’s GPO, it would almost take us to Balwyn Road,Balwyn. If we assumed that all the land north of that line was wooded vegetation, includingforest, and we wanted to clear as much as was cleared in Queensland for livestock pasture inthat twenty year period, how far would the 10 kilometre tract of land extend?Figure 20(a): 10 kilometre-wide tract of land to the east of Melbourne’s CBD 10 kmOriginal Map: Copyright 2010 Melway Publishing Pty Ltd. Reproduced from Melway Edition 38 with permissionPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 28
  • 30. The 10 kilometre wide tract of land would extend between Melbourne and Cairns 3.3 times,i.e. a total distance of around 7,800 kilometres.Figure 20(b): The equivalent land area cleared in Queensland for livestock 1988 - 2008 Cairns Source: Derived from Bisshop, G. & Pavlidis, L, “Deforestation and land degradation in Queensland - The culprit”, Article 5, 16th Biennial Australian Association for Environmental Education Conference, Australian National University, Canberra, 26-30 September 2010 Original map: www.street-directory.com.au. Used with permission. (Cairns inserted by this presenter.)Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 29
  • 31. Water UsageAn example of animal agriculture’s high water usage can be found in the 2004/05 reportingperiod for the state of Victoria. In that period (one of two recent reporting periods) it wasresponsible for 51% of the state’s water consumption. The dairy industry alone wasresponsible for 34% of overall consumption.Direct water consumption by households only represented 8% of the state’s totalconsumption.Those consumption figures can be viewed graphically as follows, based on information from 69 & 70the Australian Bureau of Statistics:Figure 21: Victorian Water Consumption 2004-05 71According to Professor Wayne Meyer of the CSIRO , it takes between 715 and 750 litres ofwater to produce 1 kg of wheat and between 1,550 and 2,000 litres to produce 1 kg of rice,compared to between 50,000 and 100,000 litres for 1 kg of beef. However, if we were to askAustralians whether rice should be grown in this country, most may say no, due to concerns 72over water consumption. Where is the concern over our massive beef industry?Similar to Professor Meyer, David and Marcia Pimentel of Cornell University have reportedthat producing 1 kg of animal protein requires about 100 times more water than producing 1 73kg of grain protein.Some findings from Associate Professor Ian Rutherfurd of the University of Melbourne (based 74partly on information from Wayne Meyer, CSIRO) are as follows: 90% of the water consumed in households in Melbourne is embodied in the production of the food that comes into the house. In one sense, urban food consumers are also consuming rivers. Small changes in food choices could potentially lead to water savings that dwarf the savings that can come from changes in direct water consumption. Thus, river condition is, to some extent, a consequence of decisions made in urban supermarkets. The authors believe that this is an empowering observation.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 30
  • 32. Urban people, far from being isolated from the environment, make critical decisions about rivers, every day, in their consumption choices. The authors suggest four ways that consumers can dramatically reduce their indirect water consumption: (i) waste less food; (ii) select comparable products that use less water; (iii) substitute types of food that use more water for types that use less; and (iv) become a vegetarian. (The authors use the term "vegetarian" to mean a diet free of meat and dairy products.) A vegetarian diet can save households up to 35% of their total water usage. That is 13 times the volume of water that would be saved by not watering the garden. The environmental benefits of vegetarianism have been made for many years, and Renault (2003) suggests that an animal product based diet may need 10 times more water than a 75 vegetarian diet. Certainly the water efficiency of vegetable production is startling. Based on the estimated water consumption of the average Australian household compared to a vegetarian household (i.e. no meat or dairy products) as presented by the authors, subsequent calculations (not included in the research papers) indicate that the average Australian could save 2,592 litres per day, or 946,000 litres per annum, by changing to a vegetarian diet. That figure compares extremely favourably to the 17 litres per person per day (6,205 litres per person per annum) that was saved in Melbourne under Stage 3 water restrictions 76 between 2005 and 2006. It also compares extremely favourably to the 20,000 litres per annum saved by using a 3 star showerhead and limiting showers to 4 minutes (not referred to in the research 77 paper). The comparison can be viewed graphically as follows:Figure 22: Comparative Water SavingsMuch of Victoria’s enormous expenditure on new water-related infrastructure projects, alongwith the environmental and other consequences of such projects, could potentially have beenavoided or reduced if consumers modified their diets.As indicated earlier, the figure of 50,000-100,000 litres has come from Prof. Wayne Meyer of 78, 79the University of Adelaide and CSIRO. It is similar to the figures of Dr David Pimentel of 80Cornell University . It is higher than figures from Prof. Arjen Hoekstra of the University of 81 82Twente and colleagues (whose figures are used by the Water Footprint Network) , but Prof.Hoekstra’s figures for meat are still many times higher than those for vegetables and grains.The Water Footprint Network is a non-profit foundation under Dutch law. The foundingpartners are: University of Twente, World Wildlife Fund, UNESCO-IHE Institute for WaterPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 31
  • 33. Education, the Water Neutral Foundation, the World Business Council for SustainableDevelopment, the International Finance Corporation (part of the World Bank Group) and theNetherlands Water Partnership.In responding to queries regarding the differences between his figures and those of Prof.Meyer and Dr Pimentel, Prof Hoekstra has stated, “All authors agree the water footprint ofbeef is larger than the water footprint of pork or chicken and much larger than the water 83footprint of grains.”Prof. Meyer has said (my underline), “While the numbers . . . were originally derived forirrigated pastures and therefore for fairly intense production the conversion of vegetative drymatter into meat is an intensive energy process and hence also an intense water requiringprocess. I suspect that if you do the same exercise on rain fed, extensive meat productionthat there may even be more water involved since feed conversion is likely to be lower,energy expended in gathering dry matter would be greater and soil evaporation losses may 84even be higher in the more sparsely vegetated dry land grazing.”“Virtual water" figures attribute all rain on a beef cattle grazing pasture (for example) to beefproduction. This is due to the fact that all water has alternative uses, including environmentalrun-off such as replenishment of water tables. For a grazing pasture, it is used to grow grassto feed cattle. Far more nutrition would generally be derived from that land area if it were usedto grow crops.Even in remote grazing lands, the available water sustains native vegetation. Making thatvegetation, and hence the water that was essential for its growth, available to livestock canseverely degrade the soil and negatively impact other aspects of the natural environment.Professor Meyer has stated:“Most commentators taking a meat production perspective identify only that water involved inthe direct supply of water to the animal. However, the very large amount of water needed isassociated with growing the feed (grass, grain and vegetative dry matter). To grow thisvegetation dry matter for the animal to eat requires water; whether this comes from rain orirrigation is not immediately important.”The Water Footprint Network’s approach is as follows:“The water footprint of a product is an empirical indicator of how much water is consumed,when and where, measured over the whole supply chain of the product. The water footprint isa multidimensional indicator, showing volumes but also making explicit the type of water use(evaporation of rainwater, surface water or groundwater, or pollution of water) and thelocation and timing of water use. The water footprint of an individual, community or business,is defined as the total volume of freshwater that is used to produce the goods and servicesconsumed by the individual or community or produced by the business. The water footprintshows human appropriation of the world’s limited freshwater resources and thus provides abasis for assessing the impacts of goods and services on freshwater systems and formulatingstrategies to reduce those impacts.”The “water footprint” and “virtual water” approaches are similar in the context of food productsthemselves. The Water Footprint Network states, “in this context we can also speak about the‘virtual water content’ of a product instead of its ‘water footprint’”.The main differences are: The “water footprint” approach applies the methodology more widely by determining the “water footprint” of an individual, a business, a country and the like. While “virtual water” simply refers to water volume, the “water footprint” is a multidimensional indicator, in that it determines where the water footprint is located, what source of water is used, and when the water is used.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 32
  • 34. Based on the work of Prof. Meyer, Prof. Hoekstra, Dr Pimentel and their colleagues, the waterefficiency of various plant products can be compared to beef, as shown on the following page.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 33
  • 35. Figure 23: Per hectare nutritional value and water usage of different foods Producing this much nutrition per hectare . . . . . . causes us to use this much water per hectare (litres): Chart 1: Protein per hectare (gm) Chart 7: Based on CSIRO figures for beef, soy, wheat and rice and Water Footprint 1,200,000 1,000,000 Network figures for potato 800,000 20,000,000 600,000 400,000 15,000,000 200,000 10,000,000 0 5,000,000 Chart 2: Energy per hectare (kcal) 0 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 Chart 8: Based on Water Footprint Network 10,000,000 figures 0 12,000,000 10,000,000 Chart 3: Iron per hectare (kcal) 8,000,000 6,000,000 500,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 400,000 0 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Chart 9: Based on figures from Dr David Pimentel, Cornell University and colleagues Chart 4: Zinc per hectare (mg) 25,000,000 150,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 100,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 50,000 0 0 Chart 5: Omega 3 per hectare (mg) Legend: 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 Be ef 20,000,000 10,000,000 0 Soy Chart 6: Calcium per hectare (mg) W h eat 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 Rice 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 Pota to 0 Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 34
  • 36. The calculations for determining the level of nutrition per hectare in the charts have utilisedinformation from the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Nutrient 85Database for Standard Reference. The assumed per hectare yield of beef (343 kg) has 86been determined by utilising the gross energy output per hectare as reported by Speddingand the USDA energy value figures. The assumed per hectare soybean yield (2,804 kg) has 87been derived from the U.S. bushels per acre as reported by Nabors , and the USDA’s bushel 88weight for soybeans of 60 pounds. The figures for wheat, rice and potato have been 89obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Year Book 2008. Please refer to furthercomments on product yields below.Wide variations in product yield can apply, depending on the location and conditions in whichproducts are grown, and some of the yields used for the above charts may be high for Australianconditions.For example, while the yield figure for beef (refer above) may be achievable in the moreintensive cattle farming regions of Australia, the enormously widespread range of cattle grazing(including grazing in marginal areas) causes our average yield to be a small fraction of the figureassumed in the charts.In regard to soy beans, the Primary Industry Bank has reported an average yield for Australian 90production of 1,880 kg per hectare between 1993/94 and 1999/00. Accordingly, as for beef,the yields for soy may be at the upper end of the expected range.If lower yields were assumed for any product, the water usage figures would be lower, but sowould the nutritional value.With the exception of vitamin B12, and subject to comments below regarding Omega-3 fattyacids, the comparisons include all the nutrients highlighted in Meat & Livestock Australia’s “fiveessential nutrients one amazing food” advertising campaign featuring the actor Sam Neill and an 91orangutan. Vitamin B12 is perhaps the only nutrient that is significantly more difficult to obtaindirectly from plants than from animals. However, it is easily produced from bacteria andsupplemented in other food products, which is a far more natural approach than: (a) destroyingrainforests and other natural environs; and (b) operating industrial livestock production systems;purely for animal food products.The charts do not distinguish between long chain (DHA and EPA) and short chain (ALA)Omega-3 fatty acids. However, the relative benefits of long chain over short chain varieties, andthe benefits of Omega-3 fatty acids generally, have been questioned on the basis of statistical 92meta-analysis and other studies.The tables in the Appendix provide the information for the charts in Figure 23. Theydemonstrate that a plant-based diet generally far exceeds animal-based alternatives in termsof nutritional yields and environmental benefits.Perhaps the only nutrient that is significantly more difficult to obtain directly from plants thananimals is Vitamin B12. However, it is easily produced from bacteria, which is a far morenatural approach than destroying rainforests and other natural environs, purely for animalagriculture.As indicated earlier, the findings reflect a key problem in using animal products to satisfyhumankinds nutritional requirements, which is the inherently inefficient nature of the process.Wide variations in product yield can apply, depending on the location and conditions in whichproducts are grown, and some of the yields shown may be high for Australian conditions. Forexample, the beef yield of 343kg per hectare per annum has been derived by using beef’s 93gross energy output per hectare as reported by Spedding and the energy derived from aquantity of beef as reported in the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard 94Reference.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 35
  • 37. The figure may be achievable in the more intensive cattle farming regions of Australia, but theenormously widespread range of cattle grazing, including grazing in marginal areas, causesour average yield to be significantly lower than reported in the table.The soybean yield of 2,804kg per hectare has been derived from the U.S. bushels per acre as 95 96reported by Nabors , and the USDA’s bushel weight for soybeans of 60 pounds. ForAustralian production, the Primary Industry Bank has reported an average yield of 1,880kg 97per hectare between 1993/94 and 1999/00.The figures for wheat, rice and potato in the first table have been obtained from the Australian 98Bureau of Statistics Year Book 2008.The sources utilised for the tables conservatively highlight the adverse effects of an animalbased diet. All the sources reviewed show significant benefits of a plant-based diet relative tothe animal-based alternative.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 36
  • 38. 3. Nutritional Value of Australian Food ProductionThe charts on the following pages show the gross production of various nutrients in Australia.They are based on: (a) production figures from DAFF’s "Australian food statistics 2010-11";and (b) nutritional information from the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (referred to earlier).The tables include, for each specified nutrient, an indication of the percentages derived fromanimal and non-animal products.They include products that are exported and/or used as livestock feed. The inclusion of thelatter means there is some double-counting of nutrients. However, given animal agriculture’srelatively low output levels for most nutrients, the double-counting does not appear to besignificant.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 37
  • 39. Tonnes kcal x 1,000,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 Wheat Wheat Lupins Lupins Field peas Field peas Chickpeas Chickpeas Rice Rice Mung beans Mung beans Navy beans Navy beans Faba beans Faba beans Lentils Lentils Barley Barley Oats Oats Maize Maize Sorghum Sorghum Triticale Triticale Potatoes Potatoes Onions Onions Carrots Carrots Asparagus Asparagus Broccoli Broccoli Cauliflower Cauliflower Tomatoes Tomatoes Mushrooms Mushrooms Lettuce Lettuce Capsicum/chillies Capsicum/chillies Cabbage Cabbage Beans Beans Other Other Soy beans Soy beans Sugar cane Sugar cane Peanuts Peanuts Apples Apples Animal products: 9%; Non-animal products: 91% Pears Pears Animal products: 19%; Non-animal products: 81% Nashi Nashi Avocado Avocado Melons Melons Pineapples Pineapples Bananas Bananas Kiwifruit Kiwifruit Mangoes Mangoes Table and dried grapes Table and dried grapes Oranges Oranges Mandarins Mandarins Lemons/limes/grapefruit Figure 24: Energy Value of Australian Food Production 2010/11 Lemons/limes/grapefruit Peaches Peaches Nectarines Figure 25: Protein Content of Australian Food Production 2010/11 Nectarines Apricots Apricots Plums Plums Cherries Cherries Almonds Macadamia Almonds Berries Macadamia Beef Berries Lamb BeefPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 Pig meat Lamb Poultry Pig meat Whole milk Poultry Cheese - Cheddar Whole milk Cheese - Non-Cheddar Cheese - Cheddar Butter Cheese - Non-Cheddar Eggs Butter Tuna Eggs Other fish Tuna38 Prawns Other fish Rock lobster Prawns Abalone Rock lobster Scallops Abalone Oysters Scallops
  • 40. Tonnes Tonnes 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Wheat Wheat Lupins Lupins Field peas Field peas Chickpeas Chickpeas Rice Rice Mung beans Mung beans Navy beans Navy beans Faba beans Faba beans Lentils Lentils Barley Barley Oats Oats Maize Maize Sorghum Sorghum Triticale Triticale Potatoes Potatoes Onions Onions Carrots Carrots Asparagus Asparagus Broccoli Broccoli Cauliflower Cauliflower Tomatoes Tomatoes Mushrooms Mushrooms Lettuce Lettuce Capsicum/chillies Capsicum/chillies Cabbage Cabbage Beans Beans Other Other Soy beans Soy beans Sugar cane Sugar cane Peanuts Peanuts Apples Apples Pears Pears Nashi Animal products: 44%; Non-animal products: 56% Animal products: 14%; Non-animal products: 86% Nashi Avocado Avocado Melons Melons Pineapples Pineapples Bananas Bananas Kiwifruit Kiwifruit Mangoes Mangoes Table and dried grapes Table and dried grapes Oranges Oranges Mandarins Mandarins Lemons/limes/grapefruit Lemons/limes/grapefruit Peaches Figure 26: Zinc Content of Australian Food Production 2010/11 Peaches Nectarines Nectarines Apricots Apricots Plums Figure 27: Calcium Content of Australian Food Production 2010/11 Plums Cherries Cherries Almonds Almonds Macadamia Macadamia Berries Berries Beef Beef Lamb LambPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 Pig meat Pig meat Poultry Poultry Whole milk Whole milk Cheese - Cheddar Cheese - Cheddar Cheese - Non-Cheddar Cheese - Non-Cheddar Butter Butter Eggs Eggs Tuna Tuna Other fish Other fish Prawns39 Prawns Rock lobster Rock lobster Abalone Abalone Scallops Scallops Oysters Oysters
  • 41. Kilograms Tonnes 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Wheat Lupins Wheat Field peas Lupins Chickpeas Field peas Rice Chickpeas Mung beans Rice Navy beans Mung beans Faba beans Navy beans Lentils Faba beans Barley Lentils Oats Barley Maize Oats Sorghum Maize Triticale Sorghum Potatoes Triticale Onions Potatoes Carrots Onions Asparagus Carrots Broccoli Asparagus Cauliflower Broccoli Tomatoes Cauliflower Mushrooms Tomatoes Lettuce Mushrooms Capsicum/chillies Lettuce Cabbage Capsicum/chillies Beans Cabbage Other Beans Soy beans Other Sugar cane Soy beans Peanuts Sugar cane Apples Peanuts Pears Apples Animal products: 3%; Non-animal products: 97% Nashi Pears Animal products: 100%; Non-animal products: 0% Avocado Nashi Melons Avocado Pineapples Melons Bananas Pineapples Kiwifruit Bananas Mangoes Kiwifruit Table and dried grapes Mangoes Table and dried grapes Oranges Oranges Mandarins Mandarins Lemons/limes/grapefruit Lemons/limes/grapefruit Figure 28: Iron Content of Australian Food Production 2010/11 Peaches Peaches Nectarines Nectarines Apricots Apricots Plums Plums Cherries Cherries Almonds Almonds Figure 29: Vitamin B12 Content of Australian Food Production 2010/11 Macadamia Macadamia Berries Berries Beef Beef Lamb LambPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 Pig meat Pig meat Poultry Poultry Whole milk Whole milk Cheese - Cheddar Cheese - Cheddar Cheese - Non-Cheddar Cheese - Non-Cheddar Butter Butter Eggs Eggs Tuna Tuna Other fish Other fish40 Prawns Prawns Rock lobster Rock lobster Abalone Abalone Scallops Scallops Oysters Oysters
  • 42. Tonnes Tonnes 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Wheat Lupins Wheat Field peas Lupins Chickpeas Field peas Rice Chickpeas Mung beans Rice Navy beans Mung beans Faba beans Navy beans Lentils Faba beans Barley Lentils Oats Barley Maize Oats Sorghum Maize Triticale Sorghum Potatoes Triticale Onions Potatoes Carrots Onions Asparagus Carrots Broccoli Asparagus Cauliflower Broccoli Tomatoes Cauliflower Mushrooms Tomatoes Lettuce Mushrooms Capsicum/chillies Lettuce Cabbage Capsicum/chillies Beans Cabbage Other Beans Soy beans Other Sugar cane Soy beans Peanuts Sugar cane Apples Peanuts Pears Apples Nashi Pears Animal products: 41%; Non-animal products: 59% Avocado Nashi Melons Avocado Animal products: 0.2%; Non-animal products: 99.8% Pineapples Melons Bananas Pineapples Kiwifruit Bananas Mangoes Kiwifruit Table and dried grapes Mangoes Oranges Table and dried grapes Oranges Mandarins Mandarins Lemons/limes/grapefruit Lemons/limes/grapefruit Peaches Peaches Nectarines Nectarines Apricots Apricots Plums Figure 30: Omega 3 Content of Australian Food Production 2010/11 Plums Cherries Figure 31: Vitamin C Content of Australian Food Production 2010/11 Cherries Almonds Almonds Macadamia Macadamia Berries Berries Beef Beef Lamb LambPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 Pig meat Pig meat Poultry Poultry Whole milk Whole milk Cheese - Cheddar Cheese - Cheddar Cheese - Non-Cheddar Cheese - Non-Cheddar Butter Butter Eggs Eggs Tuna Tuna Other fish Other fish41 Prawns Prawns Rock lobster Rock lobster Abalone Abalone Scallops Scallops Oysters Oysters
  • 43. Tonnes Tonnes 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Wheat Wheat Lupins Lupins Field peas Field peas Chickpeas Chickpeas Rice Rice Mung beans Mung beans Navy beans Navy beans Faba beans Faba beans Lentils Lentils Barley Barley Oats Oats Maize Maize Sorghum Sorghum Triticale Triticale Potatoes Potatoes Onions Onions Carrots Carrots Asparagus Asparagus Broccoli Broccoli Cauliflower Cauliflower Tomatoes Tomatoes Mushrooms Mushrooms Lettuce Lettuce Capsicum/chillies Capsicum/chillies Cabbage Cabbage Beans Beans Other Other Soy beans Soy beans Sugar cane Sugar cane Peanuts Peanuts Apples Apples Pears Animal products: 5%; Non-animal products: 95% Pears Nashi Animal products: 11%; Non-animal products: 89% Nashi Avocado Avocado Melons Melons Pineapples Pineapples Bananas Bananas Kiwifruit Kiwifruit Mangoes Mangoes Table and dried grapes Table and dried grapes Oranges Oranges Mandarins Mandarins Lemons/limes/grapefruit Lemons/limes/grapefruit Peaches Peaches Nectarines Nectarines Apricots Apricots Plums Plums Cherries Cherries Figure 33: Potassium Content of Australian Food Production 2010/11 Almonds Figure 32: Magnesium Content of Australian Food Production 2010/11 Almonds Macadamia Macadamia Berries Berries Beef Beef Lamb LambPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 Pig meat Pig meat Poultry Poultry Whole milk Whole milk Cheese - Cheddar Cheese - Cheddar Cheese - Non-Cheddar Cheese - Non-Cheddar Butter Butter Eggs Eggs Tuna Tuna Other fish Other fish42 Prawns Prawns Rock lobster Rock lobster Abalone Abalone Scallops Scallops Oysters Oysters
  • 44. Notes to charts: 1. Milk 9,102 ML = 8,884 KT (1 litre = 976 g) 2. Vegetables, Fruit and Nuts: Figures from earlier years have been used where latest figures unavailable. 3. Poultry includes chicken, turkey and duck. Chickens nutritional data has been used. 4. Trout has been used for "other fish" nutrition. 5. Eggs 247,384 dozen. Assumed weight per egg 60 g. Total weight of production 240 KT. 6. The "other" vegetable values are based on the average of listed vegetables other than potato. 7. Gouda cheese has been used for "non-cheddar". 8. The split of lettuce production is assumed to be 50% iceberg and 50% cos. 9. The figures for capsicums/chillies are based on red capsicum. 10. Nashis figures are from "pears". 11. Strawberries used for "Berries". 12. The raw sugar yield of 12% is the Qld state average from Renouf, M.A. & Wegener, M.K., "Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of sugarcane production and processing in Australia", Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 29, 2007, http://www.gpem.uq.edu.au/docs/CleanProd/LCA_sugarcane_Aus.pdf 13. The nutritional values used for maize are those of yellow corn. 14. For beef, lamb and pig meat, the charts are based on 55% of the tonnage reported in DAFF’s Australian Food Statistics. That tonnage is based on carcass weight. This approach is in line with Carbon Neutral’s estimate (referred to below) that 55% of the carcass is used as meat.The appendix contains tables that demonstrate that a plant-based diet generally far exceedsanimal-based alternatives in terms of nutritional yields and environmental benefits.Perhaps the only nutrient that is significantly more difficult to obtain directly from plants thananimals is Vitamin B12. However, it is easily produced from bacteria, which is a far morenatural approach than destroying rainforests and other natural environs, purely for animalagriculture.To a large extent, the findings reflect a key problem in using animal products to satisfyhumankinds nutritional requirements, which is the inherently inefficient nature of the process.It takes many kilograms of plant-based food to produce one kilogram of animal-based foodwith comparable nutritional value, with significant impacts on energy inputs, emissions, waterusage and land usage.The tables utilise various sources for information on factors such as product yields, GHGemissions and water usage. For example, water figures have been obtained from a paper byHoekstra and Chapagain, who have reported that, in Australia, 17,112 litres of water are 99required to produce 1 kilogram of beef. On the other hand, the CSIRO has reported a figure 100of 50,000 to 100,000 litres, whilst Pimentel has reported 43,000 litres outside Australia.The greenhouse gas emissions intensity of beef has come from a paper by Annika Carlsson-Kanyama and Alejandro Gonzalez, who reported a figure of 30kg of GHG emissions per 58kilogram of product. The Australian Greenhouse Office has reported a figure of 51.7kg.The latter was based on carcass weight. As only around 55% of a carcass is used for meat,the figure for beef based on a kilogram of served meat at that time would have beenapproximately 94 kg. The level of livestock-related land clearing has since reduced. Takingthose factors into account, the Carbon Neutral group in Perth, Western Australia, has recentlyestimated an emissions intensity figure for beef of 30.9.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 43
  • 45. Carbon Neutral is a not for profit company whose aim is to measure, reduce and offset 101greenhouse gas emissions and implement revegetation projects . Here is an extract fromits calculations in respect of beef and veal:Emissions from Beef and VealThe Department of Climate Change (2003, 93) reports that the total emissions intensity of aBeef carcass is 51.0 kg CO2e / kg. GHD (2008), among other sources report that on average,55% of a beef carcass is used towards saleable products. The CSIRO (2005), reports thattwo thirds of the emissions associated with beef production in 1999 were associated with landclearing in Northern Australia. Because broad scale land clearing has been phased out inmany states, particularly Queensland, the emissions factor has been divided by 3.In 2008, beef prices range from $8 - $30 kg depending on the quality of the beef and othermarket factors. It is assumed that the average 2010 price for beef is $18. The factor for beefand veal is therefore calculated as follows:Ghg (kg) / $ = emissions per kilo of carcass / fraction of carcass saleable x (1- portionattributable to land clearing) / price per kilo of meatGhg (kg) / $ = 51 / 0.55 x 0.33333 / 18Ghg (kg) / $ = 1.71715Ghg (kg) / kg = 30.909066End of Carbon Neutrals Calculations for Beef and VealThe people at Carbon Neutral may not be aware that a significant portion of the ongoing land 102clearing in Queensland (nearly 100,000 ha in total during 2008/09) is livestock related. Ifso, their estimate may have been higher.Emissions intensity figures for some alternative products have been reported as follows: 103 Wheat and other grains : 0.4 101 Fruit and vegetables : 0.48855 104 Potatoes : 0.45 (Domestic, cooked) 104 Rice : 1.3 (Cooked) 104 Soy beans : 0.92 (Transported by boat and cooked)Wide variations in product yield can apply, depending on the location and conditions in whichproducts are grown, and some of the yields shown may be high for Australian conditions. Forexample, the beef yield of 343kg per hectare per annum has been derived by using beef’s 105gross energy output per hectare as reported by Spedding and the energy derived from aquantity of beef as reported in the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard 106Reference.The figure may be achievable in the more intensive cattle farming regions of Australia, but theenormously widespread range of cattle grazing, including grazing in marginal areas, causesour average yield to be significantly lower than reported in the table.The soybean yield of 2,804kg per hectare has been derived from the U.S. bushels per acre as 107 108reported by Nabors , and the USDA’s bushel weight for soybeans of 60 pounds. ForAustralian production, the Primary Industry Bank has reported an average yield of 1,880kg 109per hectare between 1993/94 and 1999/00.The figures for wheat, rice and potato in the first table have been obtained from the Australian 110Bureau of Statistics Year Book 2008.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 44
  • 46. The sources utilised for the tables conservatively highlight the adverse effects of an animalbased diet. All the sources reviewed show significant benefits of a plant-based diet relative tothe animal-based alternative.Certain information from the tables is summarised in the following charts, with someduplication in respect of Figure 23.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 45
  • 47. Figure 34: Nutrition, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Water UsagePaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 46
  • 48. 4. Health IssuesThe following authors and organisations have highlighted serious health concerns involvingmeat products: 1111. Dr T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II, "The China Study" : Dr. Campbell is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. The China Study website says, "The research project culminated in a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, a survey of diseases and lifestyle factors in rural China and Taiwan. More commonly known as the China Study, this project eventually produced more than 8,000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease." Dr Campbell says, "People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease ... People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored." 1122. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine “Scientific research shows that health benefits increase as the amount of food from animal sources in the diet decreases, so vegan diets are the healthiest overall.” “The 9 essential amino acids, which cannot be produced by the body, must be obtained from the diet. A variety of grains, legumes, and vegetables can also provide all of the essential amino acids our bodies require. It was once thought that various plant foods had to be eaten together to get their full protein value, otherwise known as protein combining or protein complementing. We now know that intentional combining is not necessary to obtain all of the essential amino acids. As long as the diet contains a variety of grains, legumes, and vegetables, protein needs are easily met.” “With the traditional Western diet, the average American consumes about double the protein her or his body needs. Additionally, the main sources of protein consumed tend to be animal products, which are also high in fat and saturated fat.” 1133. World Cancer Research Fund “There is strong evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer, and that there is no amount of processed meat that can be confidently shown not to increase risk.” “Aim to limit intake of red meat to less than 500g cooked weight (about 700-750g raw weight) a week. Try to avoid processed meats such as bacon, ham, salami, corned beef and some sausages.” 1144. Harvard University “Eating red meat is associated with a sharply increased risk of death from cancer and heart disease, according to a new study, and the more of it you eat, the greater the risk. The analysis, published online Monday in Archives of Internal Medicine, used data from two studies that involved 121,342 men and women who filled out questionnaires about health and diet from 1980 through 2006.”Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 47
  • 49. “Previous studies have linked red meat consumption and mortality, but the new results suggest a surprisingly strong link.” “‘When you have these numbers in front of you, it’s pretty staggering,’ said the study’s lead author, Dr. Frank B. Hu, a professor of medicine at Harvard.” 1155. Geoff Russell, "CSIRO Perfidy" : Researchers in the 1990s discovered the similarities between damage to lung DNA from cigarettes and damage to bowel DNA caused by red meat: " . . . red meat induced . . . [a reaction in the bowel] similar to . . . cigarette smoke." UK medical researchers, 1996 CSIRO research scientists, early 2006: "Earlier reports suggested that high intake of red or processed meats could be a risk factor [for bowel cancer]. Three large population studies have recently confirmed those earlier reports." Documents obtained under Freedom of Information legislation show that CSIRO researchers informed the CSIRO Board "Recent findings from [CSIRO] scientists have established that diets high in red meat, processed meats and the dairy protein casein can significantly increase the risk of bowel cancer." CSIRO scientists inform the CSIRO Board, April 2006 Despite the above, CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet, Book 2, October 2006: "Studies have shown that fresh red meat (beef and lamb) is not a significant risk factor for colorectal cancer." 1166. American Dietetic Association “It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods.”Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 48
  • 50. 5. PricingWe need to ensure that we allocate our resources in an economically rational manner, inaccordance with efficient market practices. Such a practise would be achieved by ensuringthat current externalities are accounted for in the economic system through appropriateresource rents and charges. Consequences of the production and delivery process thatpollute the commons, extract precious resources or rely on an unpaid monopoly use must besubject to fees, such that the public are compensated for these practices. Thus the price paidfor goods and services would more fully reflect the total costs, including environmental costs,associated with their production and delivery.Governments can influence pricing through taxes on inputs, emissions trading schemes andthe like. Due to the massive impact of animal agriculture on greenhouse gas emissions, itshould be added to the Federal Government’s carbon tax.Government should also consider taking appropriate resource rents on water and other inputsthat rightly belong to the community. With the high level of exports from our animalagricultural sector, we are currently effectively exporting, for example, massive amounts ofour state’s precious water at prices which grossly understate its true value.In a 2005 article on the CSIRO and University of Sydney’s Balancing Act report, the CanberraTimes stated, “Market prices for beef do not reflect the full environmental costs of production .. . and the Aussie meat pie certainly contributes its share to climate change and land 117clearing.”Also, “Instead of being influenced by high-powered advertising, celebrity endorsement, habitor cheapness, we should be making choices based on minimising our contribution to landdegradation, excessive water use and climate change.”The article quoted the leader of the team that prepared the report, CSIRO researcher, DrBarney Foran, as saying, “We need to be a lot better educated about what we buy. Its ourconsumption that drives the economy. We cannot blame governments all the time, when weare part of the equation.The article cited the report itself by stating, One of the insights emerging from this analysis isthat the prices consumers pay for primary production items do not reflect the full value of thenatural resources embodied in their production chains.” It quoted Dr Foran as saying, “Weshould be paying more for products that have a high environmental account balance. Theconsumer should be expected to pay a realistic price for food so that we play a part in fixingup the bush, instead of sitting in town and wringing our hands about itPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 49
  • 51. 6. ConclusionThe world’s population is running out of time to avoid the catastrophic effects of runawayclimate change.Subjects such as diet must not be regarded as taboo, and must feature heavily in the choicesthat we make in order to save our planet for all species and future generations. We can nolonger regard food choices as being personal when the impacts of these choices have farreaching consequences for our environment.I trust that this paper and the others referred to in it contribute to the NFP Green Paperdiscussion in a meaningful way, and that strong measures are taken to immediately alleviateclimate change and other detrimental effects of animal agriculture.It would be helpful if the government informed the community that they can have a significantenvironmental impact by modifying their diets. Such an approach would help balance theefforts of groups such as Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA), who were named the 2007advertiser of the year at the Australian Writers & Art Directors awards, for its work in 118promoting red meat sales domestically and internationally .No one could validly complain if well-informed consumers decided to purchase fewer meatand dairy products for environmental reasons. After all, efficient markets rely on decision-makers being well informed.To mislead the public of the actual causes of climate change or water shortages is worse thandoing nothing at all. It deflects action away from those measures that would help to solve thepressing environmental problems that we face.Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 50
  • 52. Further ReadingAs stated in the Introduction, this submission includes material which has appeared in variousarticles and presentations I have prepared in recent years. They include: “Climate of Opportunity” submission to Victorian State Government, June 2008 (http://tinyurl.com/9b8t58v) Submission in response to Victorian State Government’s climate change green paper, prepared on behalf of Vegetarian Network Victoria (now Vegetarian Victoria), September 2009 (http://tinyurl.com/8v69zk9) Some environmental impacts of animal agriculture – Part 1, December 2010 update (http://tinyurl.com/8vj3lc7) Some environmental impacts of animal agriculture – Part 2, December 2010 update (http://tinyurl.com/8aeoo4h) Comments on Meat & Livestock Australia’s “myth busters” and other claims, updated 25 April 2012 (http://tinyurl.com/7dhapts) Presentation: “Solar or Soy: which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture’s impact), first presented February 2011, this version June 2011 (http://tinyurl.com/cdkqqyv) Presentation: “Climate change tipping points and their implications”, first presented March 2012 (http://tinyurl.com/72bd6bf) "Solar or Soy: which is better for the planet" (parts 1-6) via http://vivalavegan.net/community/articles.html "Have the dominoes begun to fall?" (http://tinyurl.com/7rme5nv) "Relax, have a cigarette and forget about climate change" (http://tinyurl.com/c3jl33c) “Climate change: Two presentations and an alarming update” (http://tinyurl.com/8z5w4ly)Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 51
  • 53. AppendixInputs and Outputs per Hectare of Sample Products (Refer to previous pages for sources of product yields, GHG emissions and water usage figures):Nutrient or Energy Beef Soy Wheat Rice Potato Yield (kg/ha) 343 Yield (kg/ha) 2,804 Yield (kg/ha) 2,023 Yield (kg/ha) 9,820 Yield (kg/ha) 35,857 GHG per ha (kg) 10,295 GHG per ha (kg) 2,580 GHG per ha (kg) 1,275 GHG per ha (kg) 12,766 GHG per ha (kg) 16,136 Water per ha (litres) 5,872,315 Water per ha (litres) 5,906,002 Water per ha (litres) 3,213,253 Water per ha (litres) 10,036,040 Water per ha (litres) 8,964,286 Nutrient level per Nutrient level Nutrient level Nutrient level Nutrient level Nutrient level Nutrient level Nutrient level Nutrient level Nutrient level kilo per ha per kilo per ha per kilo per ha per kilo per ha per kilo per ha Grams: Grams: Grams: Grams: Grams: 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000Protein (g) 268.9 92,281 395.9 1,110,335 111.7 226,025 26.6 261,038 25.1 899,427Energy (kcal) 3,479.0 1,193,883 4,511.6 12,652,272 3,425.5 6,931,423 1,297.5 12,741,139 929.8 33,338,748Carbohydrates (g) 0.0 0 327.3 917,942 752.1 1,521,900 281.6 2,765,759 211.4 7,579,169Dietary Fibre (g) 0.0 0 80.8 226,632 94.7 191,583 3.8 37,291 22.1 791,495Omega 6 (LA) (mg) 6,399.2 2,195,996 107,645.3 301,877,343 9,329.8 18,878,442 620.3 6,090,886 431.4 15,470,139Omega 3 (ALA) (mg) 2,399.2 823,318 14,430.2 40,467,705 750.0 1,517,594 129.7 1,274,114 130.1 4,665,026Vitamin A (IU) 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 100.0 3,585,714Vitamin C (mg) 0.0 0 45.9 128,805 0.0 0 0.0 0 96.0 3,441,806Vitamin E (IU) 0.0 0 0.0 0 12.8 25,831 0.6 6,215 0.3 11,992Vitamin K (mcg) 0.0 0 369.8 1,036,965 24.5 49,510 0.0 0 20.1 719,541Thiamin (mg) 0.8 288 4.1 11,413 4.3 8,610 1.9 18,646 0.7 23,985Riboflavin (mg) 2.5 865 7.6 21,196 3.2 6,458 0.0 0 0.3 11,992Niacin (mg) 24.4 8,363 10.5 29,348 48.9 99,020 14.6 142,949 14.0 503,679Vitamin B6 (mg) 2.5 865 2.3 6,522 4.3 8,610 0.6 6,215 3.0 107,931Folate (mcg) 50.0 17,158 2,052.3 5,755,479 779.8 1,577,868 579.7 5,693,114 279.9 10,037,602Vitamin B12 (mcg) 23.1 7,930 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0Pantothenic Acid (mg) 2.9 1,009 4.7 13,044 9.6 19,374 3.8 37,291 3.7 131,916Choline (mg) 1,029.4 353,263 1,200.0 3,365,244 230.9 467,118 20.9 205,101 147.8 5,300,621Calcium (mg) 129.8 44,554 1,401.2 3,929,378 400.0 809,384 100.0 982,000 149.8 5,372,575Copper (mg) 1.3 433 11.0 30,979 4.3 8,610 0.6 6,215 1.3 47,969Fluoride (mg) 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 410.8 4,033,658 0.0 0Iron (mg) 31.5 10,814 39.5 110,870 34.0 68,884 12.0 118,089 10.7 383,755Magnesium (mg) 200.0 68,634 2,279.1 6,391,354 1,223.4 2,475,508 120.3 1,180,886 279.9 10,037,602Manganese (mg) 0.0 0 22.1 61,957 31.9 64,578 4.4 43,506 2.3 83,946Phosphorus (mg) 2,029.4 696,432 6,488.4 18,195,793 3,787.2 7,663,313 430.4 4,226,329 699.0 25,064,023Potassium (mg) 2,340.3 803,132 13,639.5 38,250,297 3,893.6 7,878,575 350.0 3,437,000 5,351.2 191,877,688Sodium (mg) 0.0 0 19.8 55,435 0.0 0 10.1 99,443 100.0 3,585,714Selenium (mcg) 249.2 85,504 193.0 541,309 706.4 1,429,337 75.3 739,608 4.0 143,908Zinc (mg) 84.9 29,126 47.7 133,697Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 26.6 53,815 5.1 49,722 3.7 131,916 52Source of nutritional data: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference from http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=8964 and via http://www.nutritiondata.com/
  • 54. Land area, greenhouse gas emissions and water usage by product (Sources are shown here, in addition to the end of the paper, for convenience):Using the energy output per hectare of various food products as a base, the following table shows: (i) land area; (ii) GHG emissions per day; and (iii) litres of waterper day; involved in feeding one hundred people.Product Gross Energy No. of People Daily kcal No. fed kcal per kg of Equivalent kg of kg of GHG kg of GHG Hectares kg of GHG Litres of Water Litres of Water Litres of Water Output (MJ) per 2 Equivalent based on 3 product Emissions Emissions required to feed Emissions per per kg of per hectare per per day to feed Fed per Hectare product Hectare per Year1 30 year old male (daily yield per per kg of per hectare per 100 people day product5 day 100 People whose daily hectare) 4 day to feed (Rounded) product energy 100 people expenditure is (kcal): 2,848Potatoes 102,000 22 66,746 23.4 930 71.77 0.45 32.30 4.3 138 250 17,942 77,000Rice 88,000 19 57,585 20.2 1,300 44.30 1.30 57.58 4.9 285 1,022 45,270 224,000Wheat 70,000 15 45,806 16.1 3,400 13.47 0.63 8.49 6.2 53 1,588 21,394 133,000Pork 14,000 3 9,161 3.2 2,470 3.71 9.30 34.49 31.1 1,072 5,909 21,916 681,000Milk 9,000 2 5,889 2.1 600 9.82 1.00 9.82 48.4 475 915 8,981 434,000Chicken 7,000 2 4,581 1.6 2,390 1.92 4.30 8.24 62.2 512 2,914 5,585 347,000Beef 5,000 1 3,272 1.1 3,480 0.94 30.00 28.21 87.0 2,455 17,112 16,089 1,400,000Notes:1. Source: Spedding CRW 1990 in Lewis b, Assmann G (eds) "Social & Economic contexts of coronary prevention" , London: Current Medical Literature, cited in Stanton, R "The coming diet revolution" 2007,http://www.eatwelltas.org.au/PDFs/sustainability_and_diet.pps#334,69,the balanced diet2. Ibid. (Provided for comparison purposes)3. Although nutritiondata.com indicates that 1kg of potato has 93 calories, the USDA nutrition database (from which nutritiondata.com draws its data) confirms it is 93 kcal. The same approach applies to other products.4. Source: Carlsson-Kanyama, A. & Gonzalez, A.D. "Potential Contributions of Food Consumption Patterns to Climate Change" , The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 1704S-1709S, May 2009, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/5/1704S5. Source: Hoekstra, A.Y. & Chapagain, A.K. "Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern" , Water Resource Management, 2006, DO1 10.1007/s11269-006-9039-x (Tables 1 & 2),http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra_and_Chapagain_2006.pdf. The rice figure is for paddy rice. The figures for husked rice and broken rice are 1,327 and 1,525 respectivelyAdditional Notes:(a) The GHG emissions figures are based on a 100-year GWP (global warming potential). A 20-year GWP would increase the emissions intensity of beef.(b) Alternative emissions intensity figures produced by the Australian Greenhouse Office (now incorporated within the Dept of Climate Change) show more emissions from beef and less from pork, whilst calculations based on information in Appendix D of the Dept of ClimateChanges Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme July 2008 Green Paper and "The Australian Horticulture Statistics Handbook 2004" by Horticulture Australia Ltd show lower figures for fruit and vegetables.(c) Alternative water usage figures produced by the CSIRO show higher water usage from beef (50,000-100,000 litres), potatoes (500 litres) and paddy rice (1,550 litres) and a lower figure for wheat (750 litres). (Ref: Meyer, W. "Water for food - the continuing debate" ,http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/water_for_food.pdf)(d) The table assumes that an individuals energy requirements are obtained from a single food source. Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 53
  • 55. Nutritional value of foods: sample comparison of dietsNutrient or Energy Amount Required by 30 year old Tofu 100g Shortfall Chicken 200g Shortfall Beef 200g Shortfall Tofu 100g Shortfall Chicken 200g Shortfall Beef 200g Shortfall Soy Nuts 50g Brocolli 50g Brocolli 50g Soy Nuts 50g Brocolli 50g Brocolli 50g male, 178 cm tall, weighing 80 kg Kidney Beans 50g Carrot 50g Carrot 50g Brocolli 50g Carrot 50g Carrot 50g and living a "somewhat active" Brocolli 80g Potato 150g Potato 150g Carrot 50g Potato 150g Potato 150g lifestyle: Carrot 50g Almonds 50g Almonds 50g Potato 150g Almonds 50g Almonds 50g Potato 150g Banana 150g Banana 150g Almonds 50g Banana 150g Banana 150g Almonds 50g Orange 150g Orange 150g Banana 150g Orange 150g Orange 150g Banana 150g Oats 80g Oats 80g Orange 150g Oats 80g Oats 80g Orange 150g Quinoa 100g Quinoa 100g Oats 80g Quinoa 100g Quinoa 100g Oats 80g Cooked Spinach 100g Cooked Spinach 100g Quinoa 100g Cooked Spinach 100g Cooked Spinach 100g Quinoa 100g Dried Apricots 65g Dried Apricots 65g Cooked Spinach 100g Dried Apricots 65g Dried Apricots 65g Cooked Spinach 100g Avocado 50g Avocado 50g Dried Apricots 65g Avocado 50g Wmeal Bread 130g Dried Apricots 65g Wmeal Bread 130g Wmeal Bread 130g Avocado 50g Wmeal Bread 130g Milk 400g Avocado 50g Milk 400g Milk 400g Wmeal Bread 130g Milk 400g Egg 60g Wmeal Bread 130g Soymilk 400g Egg 60g Soymilk 400g Egg 60g % of Daily Requirement % of Daily Requirement % of Daily Requirement % of Daily Requirement % of Daily Requirement % of Daily RequirementProtein 64 g 159% 0% 187% 0% 182% 0% 177% 0% 198% 0% 194% 0%Energy1 2848 kcal 82% -18% 78% -22% 86% -14% 85% -15% 81% -19% 89% -11%Carbohydrates 130 g 251% 0% 218% 0% 218% 0% 251% 0% 219% 0% 219% 0%Dietary Fibre 38 g 158% 0% 131% 0% 131% 0% 158% 0% 131% 0% 131% 0%Omega 6 (LA) 17,000 mg 161% 0% 88% -12% 66% -34% 165% 0% 92% -8% 70% -30%Omega 3 (ALA) 1,600 mg 176% 0% 68% -32% 67% -33% 178% 0% 71% -29% 70% -30%Vitamin A 3,000 IU 777% 0% 789% 0% 782% 0% 786% 0% 798% 0% 792% 0%Vitamin C 90 mg 220% 0% 218% 0% 218% 0% 220% 0% 218% 0% 218% 0%Vitamin E 15 mg 153% 0% 156% 0% 150% 0% 293% 0% 296% 0% 290% 0%Vitamin K 120 mcg 589% 0% 562% 0% 558% 0% 590% 0% 562% 0% 558% 0%Thiamin 1.2 mg 150% 0% 126% 0% 140% 0% 165% 0% 141% 0% 155% 0%Riboflavin 1.3 mg 167% 0% 202% 0% 177% 0% 190% 0% 225% 0% 200% 0%Niacin 16 mg 117% 0% 191% 0% 133% 0% 117% 0% 191% 0% 133% 0%Vitamin B6 1.3 mg 217% 0% 253% 0% 227% 0% 221% 0% 257% 0% 232% 0%Folate 400 mcg 195% 0% 151% 0% 150% 0% 202% 0% 158% 0% 157% 0%Vitamin B12 2.4 mcg 0% -100% 72% -28% 230% 0% 33% -68% 105% 0% 263% 0%Pantothenic Acid 5 mg 138% 0% 169% 0% 131% 0% 155% 0% 186% 0% 147% 0%Choline 550 mg 101% 0% 59% -41% 96% -4% 128% 0% 86% -14% 123% 0%Calcium 1,000 mg 115% 0% 89% -11% 86% -14% 118% 0% 92% -8% 89% -11%Copper 0.9 mg 466% 0% 265% 0% 293% 0% 473% 0% 271% 0% 299% 0%Fluoride2 4,000 mcg 1% -99% 1% -99% 1% -99% 1% -99% 1% -99% 1% -99%Iron 8.0 mg 343% 0% 260% 0% 307% 0% 356% 0% 273% 0% 321% 0%Magnesium 400 mg 230% 0% 177% 0% 176% 0% 232% 0% 179% 0% 178% 0%Manganese 2.3 mg 555% 0% 405% 0% 405% 0% 555% 0% 405% 0% 405% 0%Phosphorus 700 mg 309% 0% 265% 0% 276% 0% 325% 0% 281% 0% 292% 0%Potassium 4,700 mg 123% 0% 111% 0% 111% 0% 125% 0% 113% 0% 113% 0%Selenium 55 mcg 254% 0% 226% 0% 253% 0% 288% 0% 261% 0% 288% 0%Zinc 11 mg 141% 0% 147% 0% 256% 0% 147% 0% 153% 0% 262% 0%Legend: = Relevant to plant-based and possibly animal-based diet. = Relevant to animal-based diet only.Source: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference from http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=8964 and via http://www.nutritiondata.com/Notes: 1. As the nutritional requirements are based on a relatively high energy user, some additional high-energy food sources would be utilised in order to meet daily requirements. 2. Fluoride is often obtained from other sources, such as fortified drinking water. Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 54
  • 56. References1 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006 “Livestock’s Long Shadow – Environmental Issues and Concerns”, Rome2 Dr David De Kretser, then Governor of Victoria, launching the book “Climate Code Red: the case for emergency action”, 2008, http://www.climatecodered.org/p/book.html3 National Snow and Ice Data Center, “September 2011 compared to past years ” http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/10/4 Connor, S., “Vast methane plumes seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats”, The Independent, 13 December, 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in- arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html (Accessed 4 February 2012)5 Borenstein, S., “Biggest jump ever in global warming gases”, The Age, 4 Nov, 2012, http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/biggest-jump-ever-in-global-warming-gases- 20111104-1myf5.html and Katharine Hayhoe, Atmospheric Scientist, cited in Brook, B. “Depressing climate-related trends – But who gets It?”, 6 Nov 2011, http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/06/depressing-climate-trends/, Original http://twitpic.com/7b8v2j6 Vale, P. "Climate Change: World Reaches Point Of No Return In Five Years, Say Scientists", The Huffington Post UK, 9 Nov 2011, updated 9 January, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/09/climate-change-five-years_n_1084052.html7 Brulle, R., cited in Romm, J, "Network News Coverage of Climate Change Collapsed in 2011", Climate Progress, 9 January, 2012, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/09/400795/network- news-coverage-of-climate-change-collapsed-in-2011/8 Media Matters for America, "Study: TV Media Ignore Climate Change In Coverage Of Record July Heat", 15 August, 2012, http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/15/tv-media-ignore- climate-change-in-coverage-of-r/189366"9 Spratt, D & Sutton, P, "Climate Code Red: the case for emergency action" (Scribe), 2008, pp. 12- 1310 National Snow and Ice Data Center, “Arctic sea ice extent settles at record seasonal minimum", 19 September, 2012, http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-settles-at-record- seasonal-minimum/11 From Brook, B. “Depressing climate-related trends – but who gets it?”, 6 Nov 2011 http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/06/depressing-climate-trends/ based on Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003) graphs from the Polar Science Center of the Applied Physics Laboratory at the University of Washington, http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/, reported in http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/piomas-september-2011-volume-record- lower-still.html12 Spratt, D. "Big call: Cambridge prof. predicts Arctic summer sea ice ‘all gone by 2015’”, 30 August, 2012, http://www.climatecodered.org/2012/08/big-call-cambridge-prof-predicts- arctic.html13 Chart by L. Hamilton, based on Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) data from the Polar Science Center http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/, cited in Romm, J, “Experts Warn Of ‘Near Ice-Free Arctic In Summer’ In A Decade”, 6 September, 2012, The Energy Collective, http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/110216/death-spiral-watch- experts-warn-near-ice-free-arctic-summer-decade-if-volume-trend and Spratt, D. “On thin ice: Time-frame to save the Arctic is melting away”, 5 September, 2012, Renew Economy, http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/on-thin-ice-time-frame-to-save-the-arctic-is-melting-away- 8849414 Spratt, D and Lawson, D, “Bubbling our way to the Apocalypse”, Rolling Stone, November 2008, pp. 53-5515 "Greenland Melting Breaks Record Four Weeks Before Seasons End", ScienceDaily, 15 August, 2012, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120815121318.htm16 Steffen, W, “The Critical Decade: Climate Science, risks and responses”, Climate Commission, p. 12 http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 55
  • 57. 17 Flannery, T, “Now or Never: A sustainable future for Australia”, Quarterly Essay 31, September 2008, http://www.quarterlyessay.com/issue/now-or-never-sustainable-future-australia18 Hansen, J, “Storms of my grandchildren”, Bloomsbury, 2008, p. 28719 The Huffington Post, “Dr James Hansen”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen20 Hansen, J and Sato, M, “Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change”, Cornell University Library, 20 July, 2011, http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968v221 NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Surface Temperature Analysis, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi- bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2012&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen =11&year1=2010&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg22 Hansen, J., “Storms of my granchildren”, pp. 255-256 and p. 287. (An alternative ice loss figure to the quoted figure of 250 cubic km from p. 287 had been shown on p. 255 but the correct figure has been confirmed as 250 cubic km in emails of 15/6/11 and 16/6/11.)23 Arup, T, “State eases sea level regulations”, The Age, 6 June 2012, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-eases-sea-level-regulations-20120605-1zu9i.html24 Steffen, W, “The Critical Decade: Climate Science, risks and responses”, Climate Commission, p. 23 http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/25 Glikson, A., “As emissions rise, we may be heading for an ice-free planet”, The Conversation, 18 January, 2012, http://theconversation.edu.au/as-emissions-rise-we-may-be-heading-for-an-ice- free-planet-489326 Hansen, J, ibid, p. 25327 Romm, J, “How The Arctic Death Spiral Fuels A ‘Wicked Backlash On Our Weather’”, Climate Progress, 25 September, 2012, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/25/904311/how-the-arctic- death-spiral-fuels-a-wicked-backlash-on-our-weather/28 “Interview with Ian Dunlop”, Australian Centre for Leadership for Women, 8 March, 2012, http://www.leadershipforwomen.com.au/transform/aclw-articles-published/expert-climate-change- panel/item/ian-dunlop29 Carus, F, “UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet”, The Guardian (Environment, Food), 2 June 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet30 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization, “Human Vitamin and Mineral Requirements: Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation Bangkok, Thailand”, 2001, pp. 14, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/y2809e/y2809e00.pdf and http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/Y2809E/y2809e08.htm31 Russell, G, “Dietary Guidelines Committee ignores climate change”, 24 March 2012, http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/03/24/dietary-gc-ignores-cc/32 Anon., “Lifestyle changes can curb climate change: IPCC chief”, 16 January, 2008, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/16/2139349.htm?section=world33 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006 “Livestock’s Long Shadow – Environmental Issues and Concerns”, Rome34 Singer, P & Mason, J, “The Ethics of What We Eat” (2006), Text Publishing Company, pp. 215 & 21635 Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Themes – Environment, Land and Soil, Agriculture”, citing World Resources Institute, World Resources, 1998-99: A Guide to the Global Environment, Washington, DC, 1998, p. 157, cited in “The Ethics of What We Eat” (2006), Singer, P & Mason, J, Text Publishing Company, p. 21636 The University of Sydney and CSIRO, 2005, “Balancing Act – A Triple Bottom Line Analysis of the Australian Economy”, http://www.csiro.au/resources/BalancingAct, cited in “A hamburger at what price?”, an interview with Bruce Poon by Claudette Vaughan, http://www.vnv.org.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=122&Itemid=6137 Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), “Agricultural Economies of Australia & New Zealand: Beef Industry Overview”, as at 9 July, 200838 Elke Stehfest, Lex Bouwman, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Michel G. J. den Elzen, Bas Eickhout and Pavel Kabat, “Climate benefits of changing diet” Climatic Change, Volume 95, Numbers 1-2 (2009), 83-102, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6, http://www.springerlink.com/content/053gx71816jq2648/ and http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2009/Climate-benefits-of-changing-dietPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 56
  • 58. 39 Vidal, J., "Water shortages to hit food supply", The Age, 28 August, 2012, http://www.theage.com.au/world/water-shortages-to-hit-food-supply-20120827-24wlc.html40 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1370.0 - Measures of Australias Progress, 2010, “Productivity and Progress”, 15th September, 2010, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/0b4689c4956acc6 1ca25779e001c4788!OpenDocument41 Derived from W.O. Herring and J.K. Bertrand, “Multi-trait Prediction of Feed Conversion in Feedlot Cattle”, Proceedings from the 34th Annual Beef Improvement Federation Annual Meeting, Omaha, NE, July 10-13, 2002, www.bifconference.com/bif2002/BIFsymposium_pdfs/Herring_02BIF.pdf, cited in Singer, P & Mason, J, “The Ethics of What We Eat” (2006), Text Publishing Company, p. 21042 Pimentel, D. & Pimentel M. “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 660S-663S, September 2003, http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full.pdf43 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Media Centre, “1.02 billion people hungry”, http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/20568/icode/44 Fridolin Krausmann, Karl-Heinz Erb, Simone Gingrich , Christian Lauk , Helmut Haberl, “Global patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the year 2000: A comprehensive assessment of supply, consumption and constraints”, Ecological Economics, Volume 65, Issue 3, 15 April 2008, Pages 471–487, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907004053 and Helmut Haberl, K. Heinz Erb, Fridolin Krausmann, Veronika Gaube, Alberte Bondeau, Christoph Plutzar, Simone Gingrich, Wolfgang Lucht, and Marina Fischer-Kowalski, “Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earths terrestrial ecosystems”, PNAS July 31, 2007 vol. 104 no. 31 12942-12947, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/31/12942.full. Both articles cited in Russell, G. “Burning the biosphere, boverty blues (Part 1)”, 5 January, 2010, http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/05/boverty-blues-p1/45 Derived from Fridolin Krausmann, et al “Global patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the year 2000: A comprehensive assessment of supply, consumption and constraints” and Helmut Haberl, et al “Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earths terrestrial ecosystems”, cited in Russell, G. “Burning the biosphere, boverty blues (Part 1)”, http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/05/boverty-blues-p1/46 Dept of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, “Australian Food Statistics 2010-11”, http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/2144103/aust-food-statistics-2011- 1023july12.pdf47 UN FAO cited in Earth Policy Institute book_wote_ch3_13.xls, http://www.earth-policy.org48 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006 “Livestock’s Long Shadow – Environmental Issues and Concerns”, Rome49 Goodland, R & Anhang, J, “Livestock and Climate Change - What if the key actors in climate change are cows, pigs, and chickens?”, World Watch, Nov/Dec, 2009, pp 10-19, http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf (Note: Robert Goodland was formerly lead environmental adviser at the World Bank. Jeff Anhang is a research officer and environmental specialist at the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation.)50 Russell, G., “Livestock and Climate Change … Status update”, 17 January, 2011, http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/01/17/livestock-and-climate-change-status-update/51 Brook, Prof. Barry and Russell, Geoff, “Meat’s Carbon Hoofprint”, Australasian Science, Nov/Dec 2007, pp. 37-39, http://www.control.com.au/bi2007/2810Brook.pdf52 George Wilkenfeld & Associates Pty Ltd and Energy Strategies, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990, 1995, 1999, End Use Allocation of Emissions Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, 2003 (Figure 7.7, p. 111), http://www.climatechange.gov.au/inventory/enduse/pubs/endusereport-volume1.pdf and http://www.climatechange.gov.au/inventory/enduse/index.html (Figure S2)53 Hamilton, C, “Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change”, (2007) Black Inc Agenda, p. 4054 Knapp, Ron, Australian Aluminium Council, Letter 10 April 2008 to Prof Ross Garnaut, Garnaut Climate Change Review (Table 3), http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/D0846236ETSSubmission-Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 57
  • 59. AustralianAluminiumCouncil/$File/D08%2046236%20ETS%20Submission%20- %20Australian%20Aluminium%20Council.pdf55 Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Report 7215.0 – Livestock Products Australia”, Dec 2006, p. 2056 Campbell, K., "Energy crunch constraining aluminium expansions”, 27 February, 2006, www.miningweekly.com, http://www.miningweekly.com/article/energy-crunch-constraining- aluminum-expansions-2006-02-2757 Eshel, Asst Prof Gidon and Martin, Asst Prof Pamela, University of Chicago, cited in “It’s better to green your diet than your car”, New Scientist, 17 Dec 2005, Issue 2530, p. 1958 Carlsson-Kanyama, A. & Gonzalez, A.D. "Potential Contributions of Food Consumption Patterns to Climate Change", The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 1704S- 1709S, May 2009, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/5/1704S59 Australian Government, Department of Climate Change, "Appendix D Analysis of the emissions intensity of Australian industries - Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper 2008", p. 500, http://www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/report/pubs/greenpaper-appendixd.pdf60 Horticulture Australia Limited "The Australian Horticulture Statistics Handbook 2004", pp 9 & 10 http://www.horticulture.com.au/docs/industry/Statistics_Handbook.pdf61 Ibid.62 The University of Sydney and CSIRO, 2005, "Balancing Act – A Triple Bottom Line Analysis of the Australian Economy", http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/balancingact/63 George Wilkenfeld & Associates Pty Ltd and Energy Strategies, “National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990, 1995, 1999, End Use Allocation of Emissions Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, 2003, Volume 1”, p. 88 and Table 5.5, p. 8564 George Wilkenfeld & Associates Pty Ltd and Energy Strategies, ibid, Table 5.2, p. 83.65 Brook, Prof. Barry and Russell, Geoff, “Meat’s Carbon Hoofprint”, Australasian Science, Nov/Dec 2007, pp. 37-39, http://www.control.com.au/bi2007/2810Brook.pdf66 The Climate Institute, “Towards Climate-Friendly Farming”, October 2009, http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/images/reports/agreport.pdf67 Map - National Biodiversity Strategy Review Task Group, “Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010–2020”, Figure A10.1, p. 91. Other information derived from Russell, G. “The global food system and climate change – Part 1”, 9 Oct 2008, www.bravenewclimate.com, which utilised: Dept. of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, State of the Environment Report 2006, Indicator: LD-01 The proportion and area of native vegetation and changes over time, March 2009; and ABS, 4613.0 “Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends”, Jan 2010; and ABS 1301.0 Australian Year Book 2008, since updated for 2009-10, 16.13 Area of crops.68 Derived from Bisshop, G. & Pavlidis, L, “Deforestation and land degradation in Queensland - The culprit”, Article 5, 16th Biennial Australian Association for Environmental Education Conference, Australian National University, Canberra, 26-30 September 2010. Original maps: Melbourne Copyright 2010 Melway Publishing Pty Ltd. Reproduced from Melway Edition 38 with permission; Australia www.street-directory.com.au. Used with permission. (Cairns inserted by this writer.)69 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Water Account, Australia, 2004-05, 4610.0, Media Release 112/2006, November 28, 2006, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyTopic/CF764A3639384FDCCA257233 007975B7?OpenDocument# and http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/DE8E081CDE6116D6CA257279000692 79/$File/46100_2004-05_pt2.pdf (accessed 21 March 2009)70 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Water Use on Australian Farms, 2004-05, 4618.0 http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/22F0E63FEA4A8B63CA2571B500752B 52/$File/46180_2004-05.pdff (accessed 21 March 2009)71 Meyer, W. 1997 "Water for Food - The Continuing Debate" http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/water_for_food.pdf (accessed 21 March, 2009)72 Meat & Livestock Australia “Fast Facts 2008: Australia’s Beef Industry”, http://www.mla.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/3EF73ECB-4FBB-4455-A561- 14CC636D7ADB/0/BeefFastFacts2008.pdfPaul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 58
  • 60. 73 Pimentel, D & Pimentel, M, "Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2003; 78 (suppl): 660S-3S, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/3/660S (accessed 21 March, 2009) (Download full PDF version from right of screen in referenced web page.)74 Ian Rutherfurd, School of Social and Environmental Enquiry, University of Melbourne, Amelia Tsang and Siao Khee Tan, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne (2007) “City people eat rivers: estimating the virtual water consumed by people in a large Australian city”, http://www.csu.edu.au/research/ilws/news/events/5asm/docs/proceedings/Rutherfurd_Ian_348.pdf (accessed 21 March, 2009)75 Renault, D. (2003) “Virtual Water Value in Food Supply Management”, Houille Blanche-Revue Internationale De L Eau (1): 80-85, cited in “City people eat rivers: estimating the virtual water consumed by people in a large Australian city”, Ian Rutherfurd, Amelia Tsang and Siao Khee Tan, 200776 Media Release by the then Minister for the Environment, John Thwaites, 1 December, 2006, cited in “City people eat rivers: estimating the virtual water consumed by people in a large Australian city”, Ian Rutherfurd, Amelia Tsang and Siao Khee Tan, 200777 City West Water, “Making Waves”, Edition 32, April-June 2007, https://citywestwater.com.au/residential/docs/makingwaves_april_-_june.pdf78 CSIRO Media Release 97/259, 23 Dec 1997 “Eat the right food – and help save Australia’s water”, http://www.csiro.au/communication/mediarel/mr1997/mr97259.htm79 Meyer, W, 1997 "Water for Food - The Continuing Debate"80 Pimentel, D.; Berger, B; Filiberto, D.; Newton, M.; Wolfe, B.; Karabinakis, E.; Clark, S.; Poon, E.; Abbett, E.; and Nandagopal, S. “Water Resources, Agriculture, and the Environment”, July 2004, http://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/352/1/pimentel_report_04-1.pdf81 Hoekstra, A.Y. & Chapagain, A.K. "Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern", Water Resource Management, 2006, DO1 10.1007/s11269-006- 9039-x (Tables 1 & 2), http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra_and_Chapagain_2006.pdf82 The Water Footprint Network, http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/home83 Hoekstra, A, Email correspondence 9 Sep, 2009.84 Meyer, W, “Water and meat producers”, Nov 2007 and updated Dec 2007 and Jun 200885 USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference via Nutrition Data at http://www.nutritiondata.com86 Spedding CRW 1990 in Lewis b, Assmann G (eds) "Social & Economic contexts of coronary prevention", London: Current Medical Literature, cited in Stanton, R "The coming diet revolution" 2007, http://www.eatwelltas.org.au/PDFs/sustainability_and_diet.pps#334,69,the balanced diet87 Nabors, R. "U.S. soybean yield declines", Delta Farm Express, 20 Aug 09, http://deltafarmpress.com/soybeans/soybean-declines-0820/88 Beuerlein, J. "Bushels, Test Weights and Calculations AGF-503-00", Ohio State University FactSheet, http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0503.html89 ABS 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2008 Table 16.9 Selected Crops - 2005-06: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/3310BE70A6407 67DCA2573D20010BB7D?opendocument90 Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd, “Positioning Australian Soybeans in a World Market”, p. 3, Dec 2001, http://www.australianoilseeds.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/647/GFsoybean_oz.pdf91 Meat & Livestock Australia, “Five essential nutrients one amazing food campaign”, 7 July 2009, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7SWyE7E_xuwJ:www.mla.com.au/Gener al/Market-Release-Imported/Five-essential-nutrients-one-amazing-food- campaign+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au92 O’Connell, S, “Omega-3: Fishy claims for fish oil”, New Scientist, Issue 2760, 20 May 2010; http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627601.400-omega3-fishy-claims-for-fish-oil.html; Knoll, N, “Nomad people baffle with good health in spite of malnourishment”, Institute of Nutrition of the Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 17 May 2010, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-05/fj-npb051710.php; Hooper L, Harrison RA, Summerbell CD, Moore H, Worthington HV, Ness A, Capps N, Davey Smith G, Riemersma R,Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 59
  • 61. Ebrahim S, “There is not enough evidence to say that people should stop taking rich sources of omega 3 fats, but further high quality trials are needed to confirm the previously suggested protective effect of omega 3 fats for those at increased cardiovascular risk”, Cochrane Summaries, 21 January 2009, http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD003177/there-is-not-enough-evidence-to-say- that-people-should-stop-taking-rich-sources-of-omega-3-fats-but-further-high-quality-trials-are- needed-to-confirm-the-previously-suggested-protective-effect-of-omega-3-fats-for-those-at- increased-cardiovascular, cited in Russell, G, “Trawling for snake oil”, 25 May 2010, Brave New Climate, http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/05/25/trawling-for-snake-oil/93 Spedding CRW 1990 in Lewis b, Assmann G (eds) "Social & Economic contexts of coronary prevention", London: Current Medical Literature, cited in Stanton, R "The coming diet revolution" 2007, http://www.eatwelltas.org.au/PDFs/sustainability_and_diet.pps#334,69,the balanced diet94 USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ and via Nutrition Data at http://www.nutritiondata.com95 Nabors, R. "U.S. soybean yield declines", Delta Farm Express, 20 Aug 09, http://deltafarmpress.com/soybeans/soybean-declines-0820/ (accessed 31 Aug 09)96 Beuerlein, J. "Bushels, Test Weights and Calculations AGF-503-00", Ohio State University FactSheet, http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0503.html (accessed 31 Aug 09)97 Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd, “Positioning Australian Soybeans in a World Market”, p. 3, Dec 2001, http://www.australianoilseeds.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/647/GFsoybean_oz.pdf (accessed 20 September 2009)98 ABS 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2008 Table 16.9 Selected Crops - 2005-06: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/3310BE70A6407 67DCA2573D20010BB7D?opendocument99 Hoekstra, A.Y. & Chapagain, A.K. "Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern", Water Resource Management, 2006, DO1 10.1007/s11269-006- 9039-x (Tables 1 & 2), http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra_and_Chapagain_2006.pdf (accessed 19 September 2009)100 Pimentel, D.; Berger, B; Filiberto, D.; Newton, M.; Wolfe, B.; Karabinakis, E.; Clark, S.; Poon, E.; Abbett, E.; and Nandagopal, S. “Water Resources, Agriculture, and the Environment”, July 2004, http://www.ker.co.nz/pdf/pimentel_report_04-1.pdf (accessed 29 September 2009)101 Carbon Neutral Ltd, http://www.carbonneutral.com.au/carbon-calculator/research-and-references/129- food-calculation-methodology.html?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page102 Vegetation Management, Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2010 “Analysis of Woody Vegetation Clearing Rates in Queensland Supplementary report to Land cover change in Queensland 2008-09”, http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/slats/pdf/slats_report_and_regions_0809/slats- sup-rpt-08-09-w.pdf103 George Wilkenfeld & Associates Pty Ltd and Energy Strategies, ibid, Table S5, p. vii104 Carlsson-Kanyama, A. & Gonzalez, A.D. "Potential Contributions of Food Consumption Patterns to Climate Change", The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 1704S-1709S, May 2009, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/89/5/1704S105 Spedding CRW 1990 in Lewis b, Assmann G (eds) "Social & Economic contexts of coronary prevention", London: Current Medical Literature, cited in Stanton, R "The coming diet revolution" 2007, http://www.eatwelltas.org.au/PDFs/sustainability_and_diet.pps#334,69,the balanced diet106 USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ and via Nutrition Data at http://www.nutritiondata.com107 Nabors, R. "U.S. soybean yield declines", Delta Farm Express, 20 Aug 09, http://deltafarmpress.com/soybeans/soybean-declines-0820/ (accessed 31 Aug 09)108 Beuerlein, J. "Bushels, Test Weights and Calculations AGF-503-00", Ohio State University FactSheet, http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0503.html (accessed 31 Aug 09)109 Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd, “Positioning Australian Soybeans in a World Market”, p. 3, Dec 2001, http://www.australianoilseeds.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/647/GFsoybean_oz.pdf (accessed 20 September 2009)Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 60
  • 62. 110 ABS 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2008 Table 16.9 Selected Crops - 2005-06: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/3310BE70A6407 67DCA2573D20010BB7D?opendocument111 Campbell, T.C. & Campbell, T.M. “The China Study”, Wakefield Press, 2007, http://www.thechinastudy.com/112 Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, http://www.pcrm.org/about/about/about-pcrm; http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/how-can-i-get-enough-protein-the-protein-myth http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/vegetarian-foods-powerful-for-health113 World Cancer Research Fund, http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_research/expert_report/recommendations.php114 Bakalar, N., “Risks: More Red Meat, More Mortality”, The New York Times, 12 March, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/health/research/red-meat-linked-to-cancer-and-heart- disease.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=red%20meat%20harvard&st=cse#115 Russell, G., “CSIRO Perfidy”, Vivid Publishing, 2009, http://www.perfidy.com.au/116 Craig, W.J., Mangels, A.R., American Dietetic Association, “Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets.”, J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul;109(7):1266-82, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864117 Anon., “Counting the Ecological Cost”, The Canberra Times, 29/05/2005, http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/news-features/the-environment-counting-the- ecological-cost/526410.aspx118 Canning, S., “Feed the market meat: ads maintain demand”, The Australian, 10 December, 2007, Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, Accession No. 200712101038733227Paul Mahony | Melbourne Australia | Response to National Food Plan Green Paper, September, 2012 61

×