Issues > January/February 2006 (#112) > New Year's Resolutions: Better Your Health and the Planet's

New Year's Resolutions: Better Your Health and the Planet's

Every winter we welcome in the New Year to the tune of resolutions big and small. This year I'm going to lose the extra weight...This year I'm going to eat better...This year...will be different.

But what if improving your health could improve the health of the environment? With motivation staring you in the face everywhere a flower grows and a bird sings, how could you falter?

Ecological Footprint

The decisions that you make in the coming year that affect your health will also affect the health of the planet. Every choice we make causes a ripple that emanates through the people, the places and the ecosystems linked to the products we consume. This "ecological footprint" is the amount of land and water it takes to produce our daily needs and to absorb our wastes.

One of the easiest resolutions you can make this winter to help reduce your eco-footprint is to change your eating habits. Below is a little food for thought.

Oil on Your Plate

Though it doesn't sound appetizing, the foods you consume, whether greens, meat or dairy, require fossil fuels to produce. Every step of food production incurs an energy cost, from chemical fertilizers and animal feed to transportation and manufacture. According to the October 2005 The Ecologist, it takes 400 gallons of oil to feed the average American each year, nearly a third of which is used to produce chemical fertilizers.

Meat requires the greatest amount of energy resources, and our yearly consumption of meat is growing. The International Food Policy Research Institute estimates that by 2020 people in industrialized countries will consume nearly 90 kg of meat a year, equivalent to a side of beef, 50 chickens and one pig. Now consider this: Producing one calorie of beef takes 33 percent more fossil fuel energy than producing one calorie of potatoes.

Comparing energy inputs of meat and potatoes may seem like comparing apples and oranges. However, depending on how crops are grown, they too require varying energy inputs. According to a 22-year farming trial study by Cornell University published in the July 2005 Bioscience, conventionally grown crops required approximately 30 percent more fossil fuels than their organically grown brethren, as well more water—two reasons, in addition to the lack of pesticides, to put organic produce at the top of your grocery list.

PAGE 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  NEXT