THREE
THE THRIVE DIET FOR A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT
The Energy Requirements of Food Production
The production, processing, and delivery of food have tremendous impact on our environment—greater than any other industry. The energy used in producing and distributing food accounts for roughly 60 percent of the total energy North Americans produce. Of that 60 percent, more than 85 percent is generated from the burning of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas. The combustion of fossil fuel to create energy in turn creates greenhouse gases. It is now commonly accepted among climatologists and other experts that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming. With the rising environmental cost of extracting and burning oil, not to mention its cost in dollars, the search for alternative energy sources is on.
Although there are alternatives that may help marginally reduce our dependence on oil over the coming years, no great savior is in sight. Ethanol, derived from corn, is a renewable resource and an oil alternative; however, large tracts of land are needed to grow the corn that would yield only a trivial energy gain in the form of ethanol. Even if all the arable fields in North America were planted with corn to produce ethanol, that ethanol would replace only one-fifth of the oil we currently consume. Of course, if fields are dedicated to ethanol production, they cannot also be used to produce food. Simply put, the energy cycle of ethanol is quite high, only marginally lower than that of oil when it is extracted, processed, and refined.
The term energy cycle refers to the amount of total energy used to produce any given object, and it is the prime consideration in our search for alternative fuel sources. The goal is simple: net gain. Just as it is in our best interest to eat foods with a high net gain in order to gain maximum energy, the production of food should adhere to the rules of efficiency—more energy should be drawn from the fuel than was used to produce it. This is logical, yet the processing of fuel sources is a tremendous energy draw, so much so that there is not always net energy gain. Some alternatives that have been experimented with have experienced a net loss, not making them a viable alternative.
Food production, processing, and delivery are the greatest threats to environmental health.
Many experts believe that the production of food uses more energy than it returns. One report suggests that for every 10 calories of fossil fuel energy burned in food production, only 1 calorie of food energy is produced. This has many food producers and environmentalists concerned. If food production uses more energy than it produces, it is only a matter of time before resources, namely fossil fuels, run dry. And aside from the possibility of a shortage of fossil fuel, its conversion to energy creates pollution. This study, however, is based on standard agriculture, which includes the raising of animals for food—making this type of agriculture up to 30 percent less efficient than plant-based crop production. The latter is still a strain on resources, but a considerably smaller one. Each time a plant-based meal is eaten instead of a meat-containing one, fewer resources are being consumed. By following the Thrive Diet, you will be helping reduce oil usage simply by consuming foods that require less energy to produce.
Scientists agree that until a new, clean source of high net-gain energy is found, each of us can make a substantial difference by reducing our dependence on oil. Since food production is the largest energy draw in North America, it’s also the best place to start: Less processing is better not just from a health standpoint but from an environmental standpoint. The first and easiest way to do this is to simply reduce the number of steps involved in the production of food—from the time it’s planted to the time you take a bite. If more milling, heating, and refining are required before food is consumable, more energy will have gone into its production.
Another major consideration in any such discussion of energy conservation is the shift of energy. Each time energy is transferred from one form to another, there is great loss: Energy transfer is extremely inefficient. Throughout our ecosystem, energy is transferred from plant to herbivore to carnivore. With each transaction, a large amount of that form of energy dissipates. It is estimated that each transfer is only about 5 to 20 percent efficient, meaning that 80 to 95 percent of the energy is lost to the environment, mostly as heat. This means that if a person eats a plant, depending on its digestibility and net gain, up to only about 20 percent of the energy within that plant will be passed on to the person to use as fuel or rebuild body tissue. If an animal were to eat the plant, a similar energy loss would take place. If a human were to then eat that animal, another 80 to 95 percent of the energy will be lost. Therefore, feeding plants to animals, only to then eat the animal, is not energy efficient. The draw on oil to fuel those extra steps is significant. In fact, the amount of oil North Americans consume could be reduced by up to 30 percent if we were all to eat an energy-efficient diet.
Protein Production: A Significant Environmental Strain
Traditionally, protein-rich foods have taken the most resources to produce, requiring the most land, the most water, and the most energy. Traditional protein-rich crops consist of animal products: meat and milk. Land must be used to grow the food to feed the animal, and pasture land is needed to raise the animal. From there, the processing and distribution of animal products are labor (therefore energy) intensive.
Most standard crops, such as wheat and corn, produce very little protein. What is needed is a plant with a high protein content, enabling it to be fed directly to humans without having to pass through numerous energy-intensive steps to convert it to a reliable form of protein. Fortunately, that plant does exist: hemp. Hemp is both nutritionally and environmentally superior to most plants. Its seed, of which approximately 35 percent is protein, delivers numerous nutrients. And unlike many crops, hemp can be grown in both hot and cold climates. Because it grows much faster than many traditional crops, the harvesting cycle of hemp is shorter, allowing more to be produced in the same amount of time. Naturally resistant to most pests, hemp crops can be grown efficiently without herbicides and pesticides.
In Canada, Japan, and Europe, hemp crops have been planted in over-farmed fields to rejuvenate the soil. (It is illegal to grow hemp in the United States.) Once the hemp has gone through its growing cycle, usually about three months, it is plowed into the soil and left to decompose. After a few rotations, the soil can be used for growing less productive crops. Hemp can thrive in arid conditions, making irrigation unnecessary and therefore conserving water. Since much of the water used to irrigate crops is far from pure, the risk of health concerns arising from irrigation is lower with hemp crops. And finally, in contrast to the protein sources of the standard North American diet, plant-based sources, and hemp in particular, have low oil requirements for their production.
Other primary-source protein foods include legumes, seeds, and pseudograins. I explain each in detail in Chapter 5.
With the current price of oil, how is it that some foods requiring so much energy to be produced are still inexpensive to buy in the supermarket? Farming subsidies, still in place in many countries, including the United States and Canada, shelter us from the cost of food production. If the price we paid for our food were a true reflection of the resources that went into its production, the cost of inefficiently produced food would be sky-high. With the price of oil being what it is, we should pay more for food that requires more oil to produce. And in effect we are—since subsidies are provided by the government, a portion of our tax dollar goes into sustaining inefficient food industries.
A plant-based diet significantly reduces our dependence on oil.
Soil Quality
The soil in which we grow our food is an important factor in its nutrient value. We get many of the trace minerals our body needs from our food. For several of these nutrients, plants are simply the conduit, pulling minerals from the soil. Whether or not these plants then pass through animals before making their way to our diet, the starting point is always the same—the earth.
Organic farmers have been aware of soil value for centuries, even before they were known as “organic” farmers. Once too great a demand was placed on the soil, by too many crops grown without a field rotation, for example, it started to produce less vibrant plants—smaller, less colorful, and less flavorful crops that lacked the healthful qualities their counterparts grown in rich soil possessed. And so the farmers began to enrich the soil. Using decomposing plant waste in the form of compost was a common way of adding valuable minerals and nutrients back into the soil. Allowing worms to develop colonies within the soil was also a way of improving crop quality. Worms help speed the rate at which organic matter decomposes and enable a new crop to be planted sooner. These methods are still used today by some organic farmers. Most of the large food-producing companies, however, take less care in nourishing the soil. Instead, they focus on the plant, making sure it is not harmed by disease or insects, and so plants are sprayed with herbicides and pesticides, which, ironically, cause their quality to suffer. This manner of farming is perpetuated by the increased demand to produce food regardless of nutrient value. The vast majority of these crops are feed for animals being produced for food themselves. Again, passing food through these extra steps is a large energy draw, as well as an inefficient use of land.
Why the Thrive Diet Is Less Demanding on the Environment
A diet consisting of food that has been minimally processed and consists of primary-source nutrition is less demanding on the environment. Primary-source nutrition means eating solely plant-based foods. As I noted earlier, without adding the extra step of feeding plants to animals and then eating the animal, as is the basis of the typical North American diet, a considerable amount of energy is conserved, about 30 percent—and 30 percent is huge. When energy gains measured in the 1 and 2 percent range are considered “significant,” 30 percent is massive.
Imagine if North America reduced its energy usage by 30 percent. If every North American were to eat a diet based on primary nutrition, that is exactly what would happen.
The Thrive Diet is an environmental friendly diet. It calls for eating many foods in their natural state, with little preparation. These foods consist entirely of primary sources of nutrition—plants.
What Can We Do?
Money greases the wheels of our cultural machine; therefore, it is the greatest initiator of change. We simply have to use the power of economics to help ourselves. To not support corporations that practice poor environmental policies such as unsustainable and inefficient land use, use of toxic herbicides and pesticides, and destruction of old-growth forests is only half the solution. We as informed consumers hold the power.
Smaller, environmentally conscious companies are beginning to attract more and more informed customers each year. Supporting these companies is twice as effective as simply not buying from those whose practices are destructive. For example, to buy non–genetically modified hemp foods grown without pesticides or herbicides puts money toward promoting a clean, sustainable industry. If these sustainable industries are able to flourish because of our support, others will see the economic carrot of “green” agriculture, and they will follow. This is one problem that we can eat ourselves out of.