The
Year of the Bean
Beans
are our legacy. They could also be our ticket to surviving the 21st
century.
By
SYD BAUMEL
The
UN has named 2016 the “International Year of Pulses.” No, they're
not talking about that throbbing vein
in our necks. Put more simply, this is The
Year of the Bean. And it's about time.
Beans,
lentils, legumes, pulses – call these protein-rich, pod-enclosed
seeds whatever you like – are our legacy. Most of us come from
cultures where cheap beans, not costly meats, were – and in some
cases still are – a staple protein. But most of us have strayed
from that traditional cuisine. We have abandoned the rich variety of
leguminous flavours, shapes and colours for the
flashy cheap date of factory-farmed meat, milk, cheese and eggs.
We
need to do a one-eighty. Why? Because it's 2016.
Beans
and other pulses, together with their partner in cheap, plant-based
protein, cereal grains, are the greenest, most sustainable way to
feed the world.
In
a report
several years ago, the United Nations Environmental Programme
cautioned that as we hurtle toward a collision between mounting
overpopulation, diminishing agricultural capacity and accelerating
climate change, “a substantial reduction of impacts [will] only be
possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal
products.”
Last
year, the nutritional
scientists tasked with
advising
the U.S. government on its Dietary
Guidelines for Americans (commonly
known as the Food Pyramid or MyPlate)
wrote
to the decisionmakers in Washington:
“A
dietary pattern higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables,
fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in
animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with
lesser environmental impact than is the current average U.S. diet.
The U.S. population should be encouraged to move towards the dietary
pattern noted above while decreasing overall total calories.”
Mind
you, it is classifying it that way, and we need to correct that
before we go any further. In keeping with the practice of its Food
and Agriculture Organization, the UN classifies legumes that are sold
fresh, not dried (think green beans, frozen peas, edamame) as
vegetable crops, not pulses. Nor do peanuts and soybeans, which are
traded and classified as oilseeds, get to wear a party hat for the
official International Year of Pulses. But they do for the unofficial
Year of the Bean, because they're all part of the same botanical
family which so admirably helps fill the gap in protein, iron and
zinc that can arise when we eat less animal food.
It's
true that, ounce for ounce, fresh, frozen or cooked dried beans don't
pack the same punch as meat, fish, milk and eggs when it comes to
those nutrients. But that needn't be an issue. Even vegans, who eat
no animal food whatsoever, can more than meet their protein and trace
mineral needs with help from beans, as nutritional authorities like
the American Dietetic Association attest.
The
fact is North American adults typically eat much more protein (around
80 grams per day) than nutritionists say we need (around 50 to 60
grams, depending on gender or weight). Overdo it, and our kidneys
feel the strain.
So
swap out three ounces of chicken (25.7 grams of protein) from your
curry with three ounces of chick peas (7.4 grams) and you'll probably
still
be eating too much protein. If not – if, say, you're a senior
losing bone mass, which requires calcium and
protein – it's not exactly a hardship to
enjoy a cup of nicely seasoned chick peas (14.5 grams of protein) or
a smaller serving of protein-rich soy. Three ounces of calcium-set
firm tofu will give you 14.5 grams of protein and
nearly 700 milligrams of calcium.
“Less
is more” may also apply to the type of iron that abounds in red
meat. By eating less
of it and more of the nonheme iron found in beans and other plant
foods, men and postmenopausal women may actually lower their risk
for heart disease, diabetes and perhaps even cancer and dementia.
All
things considered, with beans the bottom line is not what you lose
when you eat them instead of meat. It's what you gain.
For
example, you won't find any fibre in food that comes from an animal.
But beans are brimming with it, especially the soluble kind that
reduces cardiovascular risk factors, like LDL cholesterol, and
discourages blood sugar from rising into diabetic territory.
It's
much the same for magnesium, an essential mineral commonly in short
supply among omnivores (there's barely any in animal flesh). It
abounds in beans.
When
it comes to fat, beans, with the exception of peanuts and soybeans,
have very
little of it – and zero cholesterol. Although authorities have
grown increasingly skeptical that dietary cholesterol is a risk
factor for cardiovascular disease, a
recent meta-analysis suggests it may indeed clog the arteries of
people with diabetes.
What
little fat beans typically have is good fat: mostly essential
polyunsaturated fatty acids (we need these, like vitamins) and
heart-friendly monounsaturated fatty acids. In contrast, while animal
fats have some good fatty acids too, they abound in potentially
artery-clogging saturated fatty acids. Beans have little.
With
nutritional differences like these, it's not surprising that diets
with less meat and more beans – including vegetarian and vegan
diets – appear
to be conducive to better health, including less cardiovascular
disease (hypertension, clogged arteries, heart attacks, strokes),
type 2 diabetes and even prostate
and breast cancer, in the case of soybeans.
So,
eat more Lentil Pilaf and less Beef Stroganoff, and you're probably
doing your body good. But what about the planet? Yes. That, too.
From
Planet Beef to Planet Bean
The
key to understanding why plant-based protein staples like beans are
inherently much better for the planet – by conserving natural
resources, limiting pollution and preventing disruptive climate
change – than animal-based protein is efficiency.
With
the rare exception of animals fed entirely on unirrigated pasture or
food waste, for every pound of corn, soy or other cultivated crops
that farmers feed to animals, at best only a few ounces end up as
meat, eggs or cheese (milk is an exception because it's mostly
water). Most of what they feed to livestock is burned off by the
animals' muscles and metabolism or becomes bones and other animal
parts of little or no value to humans. Beef cattle, for example, even
though they typically spend their first 12 to 18 months eating grass,
almost always spend their last few months packed into feedlots.
There, they are “finished” (fattened) so intensively with pulse-
and grain-based feed that by the time their existence has been
reduced to chuck steak and Papa Burgers, the equivalent of over 30
pounds of cooked grains and beans has been squandered to produce one
pound of boneless beef. (This is based on industry statistics of 6
dry-weight pounds of feed needed to produce one pound of live weight
steer, yielding 40
percent meat. As a rule, feed conversion ratios are based on dry
weight in, live weight out.)
Even
the most Machiavellian industrial techniques to turn feed into food
can't compete with beans. Today's “broiler” (meat) chickens have
been genetically selected for their ability to grow very fat, very
fast. With the help of antibiotic-laced feed (which also stimulates
weight gain), they plump up so rapidly that some die on the job.
Broilers are normally sent to slaughter at the tender age of six
weeks, but these workplace casualties, with their unnaturally
top-heavy bodies barely supported on their naturally spindly legs,
drop dead (usually of heart failure)
even before their premature date with destiny.
Despite
growing up in a densely crowded barn with little room for wasting
“inputs” (feed) on exercise, it still takes the equivalent of
four or five pounds of cooked grains and beans to produce one pound
of whole chicken. Throw away the feathers, bones and other inedible
parts, and the efficiency is even less.
Chicken
meat may be high in protein, but considerably more plant protein goes
in than comes out.
“Layer
hens” are cut from a different genetic cloth. Their purpose is to
convert feed into eggs, not meat. Crammed together in wire cages so
confining they can barely stretch a wing, let alone peck around a
barnyard, they have even less opportunity to waste precious feed on
selfish exercise. About every 30 hours they lay a new egg – almost
twice as many as Old MacDonald's hens. Still, they convert plant
protein to animal protein about as inefficiently as broiler chickens
do.
Modern
dairy cows have been bred to lactate so profusely that they are
“spent” as milk producers and sent to slaughter by the age of
four or five. Typically confined
most of the time to narrow
stalls, they give their all to make milk for people they will never
know, not their own calves. Even so, dairy cows only
convert about 10 percent of the dry weight of their feed (which
includes hay) into the dry weight of their milk.
And
so it goes for all species of livestock. The upshot? Every time we
eat a serving of meat, milk or eggs, we're consuming all the
resources and pollution that went into producing many more servings
of legumes and grains. Our environmental
footprint is that much bigger – even before we start measuring the
cow farts.
It's Not a Gas
It's
fitting that The Year of the Bean follows the year when the world's
leaders finally got serious about keeping global warming since
preindustrial times under 2 degrees Celsius and preferably under 1.5.
We're
already nudging up against 1 degree, and most of that has happened in
just the past 40 years. From here on in, we're playing chicken with
catastrophic climate change.
Pressure
to feed a hungry world inefficiently and unsustainably with
meat instead of wheat is driving the conversion of rainforests into
soybean plantations – not for hippies, but for livestock. A slashed
and burned forest is a carbon sink reduced to a chimney.
Far
worse for the climate is all the flatulence and excrement produced by
over 50 billion cows, chickens, pigs and other animals raised and
killed for meat, milk and eggs every year.
In
ruminants (cows, goats, sheep), this flatulence is rife with methane
(CH4), a potent
greenhouse gas that heats our climate about 100 times more strongly
than carbon dioxide (CO2)
over the 12 and-a-half years it takes for most of it to break down
into CO2 and
water.
Methane
also outgasses from the poop of all farmed animals, as does an even
more potent greenhouse gas: nitrous oxide (N2O).
Perhaps
you're wondering, “but
what about all the methane we
‘emit’ when we eat beans instead of beef?”
It turns out it's a
fart in the bucket. Research suggests our meagre, bean-induced
methane emissions increase the carbon footprint of producing,
transporting and cooking those beans by less than one percent.
That's
a tiny fraction of an already very slight footprint that
varies from about 1 kilogram of CO2e
per kilogram of lentils to 2 kg CO2e
per kg of dried beans, according to a
review of the literature by the Environmental Working Group. (The
“e” in CO2e
stands for “equivalent,” because it includes the footprint of
methane and all the other associated greenhouse gas emissions,
standardized by convention to a 100-year timescale. It's
worth mentioning that this long timescale underestimates the
immediate impact of livestock emissions and
the opportunity to rapidly mitigate global warming
by
moving back from meat to beans.)
As
you might expect, the carbon footprint of beef is much larger:
27 kg per kg. Lamb is a gargantuan 39.
In
apparent contrast, at just
1.9, milk's carbon footprint looks like a
deal. But with 90 percent water, the protein yield of milk (33 grams
per kg) is a fraction of beans' (about 90 grams per kg; 180 g/kg for
soybeans). We get a clearer picture with the carbon footprint of
cheese: 13.5. Though cheese has slightly more protein than soy, its
carbon footprint is over six times bigger.
The
carbon footprints of other animal products are smaller than ruminant
meat and cheese, from pork (12.1), farmed salmon (11.9) and turkey
(10.9) on down to chicken (6.9), canned tuna (6.1), eggs (4.8) and
yogurt (2.2).
Things
only start to look better when we come to wild fish and seafood.
These obviously aren't weighed down by the carbon footprint of feed
crops. Nor do they belch methane. But fishers still use diesel to
chase them. One
study suggests fish easily caught in bulk, close to shore, might
have a carbon footprint that's either comparable to (skipjack tuna,
mackerel, scallops, North American salmon) or even better (sardines)
than beans. But other species, like sole, shrimp and lobster, have
already outweighed beans' carbon footprint by the time the boats
return to shore.
Carbon
footprints aside, wild fish and seafood are fraught with worries
about overfishing and even extinction. You can never overfarm beans.
With
a little help from more beans and less beef, we
can save ourselves from catastrophic climate change. But we still
have to contend with another existential threat.
Since
1950, humanity has tripled its population from 2.5 billion to 7.3. By
2050, the UN estimates we'll be pushing 10 billion and topping 11 by
2100.
We're
already having trouble keeping nearly one billion of ourselves fed,
and it doesn't help that we keep feeding so much of our limited
agricultural yield to livestock (or converting it to biofuels, which
is
controversial at best
as a would-be green energy strategy).
By cutting out the animals we have selfishly conscripted as
middlemen, we could
feed four
billion
more people, according to the beef and bean counters at the
University of Minnesota. Just cutting down would accomplish wonders.
We
need to start moving in that direction. After all, it's The Year of
the Bean. So let's get soaking.
Syd
Baumel is an editor with The Aquarian. He blogs
about food politics and the environment at eatkind.blogspot.ca and
sydbaumel.blogspot.ca.
No comments:
Post a Comment