One of the real problems with wasting food is that we also squander the embedded resources. Mainly, oil and water (and I have found a way to mix the two here).
While I usually focus on oil, water is increasingly coming to the fore. To wit, this fascinating Dutch study that tallies foods’ water footprint. In addition to finding the water footprint of a city or nation, the study also calculates it for individual foods.
On page 54 of the study, we learn that chocolate, with 24,000 liters of water needed per kg, is among the worst offenders. We also get further evidence for eating chicken or pork instead of beef, and for fruits and vegetables instead of any meat.
Lest this idea prompts green fatigue (‘What other footprints do I need to worry about??’), here’s some free advice: Have a beer–only 75 litres per 250 ml glass! Or some water…
—
Note: This Guardian piece prompted today’s post. And don’t forget to check out this UK report, which found that the water embedded in the food Britons throw away equals 6% of total UK water needs.
6 Comments
Would those stats also apply to local beef? I buy a portion of a cow from a little family farm near my house, and those cows graze on grassy hillsides before being butchered instate. I’m prone to thinking that the footprint of that beef is different than the footprint of the grocery store beef.
Oh No, not chocolate!
FG–I’m pretty sure the study refers to feedlot beef. So I think your local beef has a much smaller ‘waterprint.’
Bernie–I know–terrible news, huh? And just when you could feel good about eating dark chocolate because of those health benefits…
Woohoo! Now I won’t sound so crazy when I say I don’t do chocolate!
Chocolate trees are tropical. Tropical trees require more water than, say, desert or temperate trees, but they grow in tropical rainforests. Tropical rainforests have a lot more water naturally available. Or, are they being grown with flood irrigation from water diverted from rivers or ground water pumping? If the chocolate trees are being grown in tropical forests (where it is naturally humid and water is available), then does it matter that chocolate requires a lot of water? I can see it being an issue if someone was trying to start a plantation in an arid region… And, of course, there are other environmental issues related to how the chocolate trees are grown (e.g, monoculture vs. polyculture, how they are grown, how they are harvested, how much native forest is torn down, local socioeconomic issues, etc.). Just thinking out loud… :]
I really dislike many of these “footprint” studies that calculate how much of a resource is used in the production of something else. Do not get me wrong–when done well, they can be quite enlightening and I have even used some of the studies when I teach. However, the final results depend on the assumptions made in the calculations (and I make this very clear to my students). If these assumptions are not made clear, they are very misleading and are often used to be inflammatory. Frugal Girl’s post regarding grass fed beef vs. feedlot beef is an excellent example of the HUGE differences in resource use and environmental issues associated with the two types of conditions used for raising cows for dairy or beef.
Do you wear boxers or biefs? I wana bui em. 499452