I’m a vegetarian. But my husband’s not. And, go figure, my kids aren’t either. Which is exactly why I care about the meat I buy. Yes, I buy meat. I’d rather not, but if it’s coming into the house–and into my kids’ bodies–then I need to know exactly what I’m buying. And I not only want to know how it’s affecting my family’s health, I also care deeply about how it’s affecting our family’s environmental footprint (including climate change).

Enter Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) new Meat Eater’s Guide to Climate Change + Health. In it, EWG took a close look at how a variety of protein foods rank when their total, “cradle-to-grave” greenhouse gas emissions are calculated. Then we factored in the non-climate environmental impacts (like water pollution) and health effects of meat and confirmed that, indeed, not all meat is created equal.

Different foods generate different amounts of green house gases

Our lifecycle comparison shows that, pound for pound, lamb, beef, cheese, and pork generate the most greenhouse gases (GHGs) of the protein foods we looked at; beef emits four times as many GHGs as chicken! They also tend to be higher in saturated fat and have the worst overall environmental impacts because producing them requires the most resources, mainly chemical fertilizer, feed, fuel, pesticides, and water.

If you’re scratching your head, wondering how exactly eating meat generates GHGs, there are three main sources: Feed production, ruminant digestion, and manure. In other words, growing animal food, farting animal food, and pooping animal food. (Excuse our language, but it’s clearest–and likely more memorable–this way. Plus, my eight-year old son thinks it’s hilarious.) For a bite-sized description of the climate and environmental impacts of each stage of meat production (there are many: Growing feed, grazing, slaughtering, transporting all of it, eating, and wasting), see the meat lifecycle graphic on EWG’s Web site.

It’s Clear: We’re Eating Too Much Meat

For many, meat is a regular, familiar part of their diets. Eating meat in moderation can be a good source of complete protein and key vitamins and nutrients such as iron, zinc and vitamins B-12, B-6, and niacin. That said, we eat far more protein than we need: Kids get three to four times the recommended amount and adult men get twice the amount they need. And, of course, the nutritional benefits of meats can be reaped from other, less environmentally damaging food sources (like lentils and beans).

The scientific evidence is increasingly clear that eating too much meat–particularly red and processed meat–contributes to a wide variety of serious health problems like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obesity. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), most human exposure to dioxins comes from food, almost entirely through animal fats. The best way to reduce the health risks associated with dioxins and other toxins is by limiting your dietary exposure to them.

Eating Less and Better Meat

If your health and the planet are on your “to do” list at all, you’ll accomplish a lot by trimming your portions, skipping it here and there (why not every Monday?), and choosing leaner, greener meat. Just like reducing home energy use or driving less, skipping meat once a week can make a meaningful difference in GHG emissions if we all do it. According to EWG’s calculations, if everyone in the U.S. chose a vegetarian diet, it would be the equivalent of taking 46 million cars off the road or not driving 555 billion miles. To present a likelier option, if everyone in the U.S. ate no meat or cheese just one day a week, it would be like not driving 91 billion miles–or taking 7.6 million cars off the road.

At the same time, keep in mind that although important for improving your health and reducing your personal carbon footprint (of which you’re, thankfully, the boss), eating less (or no) meat, by itself, won’t stop climate change or eliminate environmental damage. The fork is powerful, but not all-powerful. But don’t let that stop you. Wield it anyway and support policy change to invest in greener energy and cleaner, more sustainable food production.

EWG’s Tips for Meat Eaters: Finding the Good Stuff

Often, it’s not our goals (often good), but rather lack of specific, trustworthy knowledge about smart consumer choices that stands between us and our best intentions. Which is why EWG put together our top tips for leaner, greener meat shopping (we also have a wallet card, available on our Web site). If you buy less meat overall (our top tip for meat eaters), you can more easily afford healthier, greener meat.

When shopping, always read the labels (and check our label decoder)! Look for:

• Grass-fed or pasture-raised meat: Has fewer antibiotics and hormones and in some cases may have more nutrients and less fat; the animals live in more humane, open, sanitary conditions and well-managed systems reduce erosion and water pollution, conserve carbon and preserve biodiversity and wildlife.
• Lean cuts: Less fat will likely mean fewer cancer-causing toxins in your body.
• No antibiotics or hormones: Reduces unnecessary exposure and helps keep human medicines effective.
• Certified organic: Keeps pesticides, chemical fertilizers and genetically modified foods off the land, out of the water and out of our bodies.
• Certified humane: Means no growth hormones or antibiotics and ensures that animals were raised with enough space and no cages or crates.
• Unprocessed, nitrite-free, and low sodium: Avoid lunchmeats, hot dogs, prepackaged smoked meats, and chicken nuggets.
• Sustainable seafood: Avoid airfreighted fish, most farmed salmon, and consult Monterey Bay Aquarium’s list of the most sustainable seafood choices.
• Local: Supports your local economy and protects farm land.

If you can’t find these healthier products (we know that in some places it takes a little hunting), ask your grocer to carry them (as more and more people ask, they will become more readily available). And consult eatwellguide or eatwild, both terrific online resources, to find a nearby store with greener, pasture-raised meat.

Wasting less and eating less and greener meat is a powerful investment in yourself and our planet–that’s easier to make than you might think. Start today by taking EWG’s pledge to eat less meat. (and hey, it’s Monday, why not make today your first Meatless Monday?). It’s good to be part of the solution, isn’t it?

More Americans are demanding higher quality meat–animals fed appropriate, antibiotic-free diets on small farms and slaughtered humanely–and they are choosing to eat less of it, too. Whether turned off by endless recalls, or turned on by the health and environmental benefits of eating less meat, growth in campaigns like Meatless Monday show a powerful shift in the Zeitgeist.

Meanwhile Big Meat is taking on the Environmental Protection Agency to maintain its right to let manure run into our waterways, as it defends the excess antibiotic use (80 percent of antibiotics used in the U.S. are given to livestock), inhumane practices, and consolidation of the industry as the only way to feed the world. The beef industry has even invested in a communications degree that aims to revitalize the consumer image of industrial beef.

The conversation around how we bring meat to the table is multifaceted and is the subject of a lively discussion on April 14 at New York University entitled “What’s the Matter With Mass-Produced Meat?”

The conversation around how we bring meat to the table is multifaceted and is the subject of a lively discussion on April 14 at New York University entitled “What’s the Matter With Mass-Produced Meat?”

Co-sponsored by Kitchen Table Talks and Eating Liberally, the event will feature Daniel Imhoff, editor of CAFO: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories, Michael Moss, the New York Times investigative reporter whose exposé on E. coli-tainted industrial beef, “The Burger That Shattered Her Life,” won a Pulitzer Prize; and Marion Nestle, NYU nutrition professor who served on the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, and author of Food Politics and What to Eat, among other books. I am honored to moderate the conversation and welcome your questions below in the comment section or send me a tweet @civileater in advance of the panel.

The discussion will take place at Fales Library at New York University, 70 Washington Square So, Third Floor from 6:30-8:30 p.m. Please RSVP to rsvp@library.nyu.edu or call 212.992.7050. This event is free and open to the public, but please be mindful when you reserve a space as seating is limited. Books will be available for sale and there will be a signing following the event. Sustainable food and refreshments will be provided by Northern Spy.

More about the team behind the event:

Eating Liberally is a social network whose aim is to swell the ranks of ecologically enlightened “food citizens” through spreading the word about books, films, and other projects that promote an alternative, plant-based food chain powered by the sun instead of Sunoco.

Kitchen Table Talks is a regular conversation series about the American food system. Its mission is to build community and exchange knowledge and ideas that lead to specific actions to make meaningful improvements in our food system.

Photo: Nourishing Our Children Photos via Flickr

Knowing this, I continue to be frustrated with the fact that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack does not publicly recognize that the industrial food animal production system is a leading contributor to the increase of antibiotic resistance in pathogens that infect people and animals. Earlier this month at a National Cattlemen’s Beef Association meeting, Vilsack responded to a question about the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA) by saying the, “USDA’s public position is, and always has been, that antibiotics need to be used judiciously, and we believe they already are.”

That quote had me scratching my head when I read it in a New York Times Op-Ed a couple of weeks ago. The Times’ editors interpreted the statement as saying Vilsack believes there is no need to change antibiotic use policy among food animal producers. That contradicts the positions of both the FDA and CDC. The Times pointed out that while neither regulatory agency is doing enough to address the problem both, at least, recognize that current antibiotic use should change.

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the primary sponsors of PAMTA, which calls for limits on the non-therapeutic use of certain antibiotics in livestock production, were perplexed with Secretary Vilsack’s comment too.  They recently requested that Vilsack clarify his stance on the issue. In a letter, Slaughter and Feinstein wrote:

Media reports suggest that you may have mischaracterized our legislation and made statements that run contrary to previous positions taken by Department officials. We hope that you can provide us with reassurance that your off-the-cuff remarks were taken out of context, and that you remain committed to protecting human and animal health.

I called the Secretary’s office for a clarification myself. A USDA spokesperson sent me the following statement:

USDA believes that antibiotic use should be used judiciously to slow the development of resistance in animals. USDA believes livestock producers are good stewards, use antibiotics judiciously, but there are some bad actors, and continued use can develop resistance. USDA wants to be a partner with Congress, producers and other federal partners to address this important issue.

This statement does little to address the issue at hand. The problem does not lie with a few rogue producers. Rather, there is a currently FDA-approved industry standard of feeding livestock and poultry low concentrations of antibiotics and other antimicrobials–including arsenic-based treatments–in their feed to promote growth. Considering industry produces more than 10 billion food animals a year (the majority chicken and hogs) the amount of antibiotics used in food animals is astronomical. Case in point, researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimate that the amount of antibiotics North Carolina hog producers use in their swine feed every year exceeds the total amount of antibiotics used to treat infections in people nationwide. It is estimated that as much as 70 percent of the antimicrobial drugs used in the US are administered to animals not to treat disease, but to purportedly promote growth or prevent the spread of pathogens among livestock and poultry living in intensive confinement.

All uses of antibiotics contribute to drug resistance.  While human medicine plays a large role in the antibiotic drug resistance problem, new research is clearly showing that resistant bugs from food animals are starting to show up in people more and more.  Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Hershey Medical Center researchers recently published a study that confirms other research indicating that hospitals are no longer the main source of exposure for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus or MRSA.  And researchers in Europe have published evidence that livestock production is increasingly becoming a major source for the Super Staph bug.

The reason why PAMTA is focusing on the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animals is that it is contrary to everything we have known for 70 years about preserving these drugs.  The amounts of antibiotics used in animal feeds are low and are not intended to kill bacteria.  That creates a problem first recognized by the inventor of penicillin, Alexander Fleming, who warned in 1945 that, “the greatest possibility of evil in self-medication is the use of too small doses so that instead of clearing up infection, the microbes are educated to resist penicillin.” Many infectious disease experts believe that we may very well be close to a post-antibiotic era, which could mean a return to a time when a simple bacterial infection could cause your child, your parents or you serious health problems or even death.

In their letter to Secretary Vilsack, Senator Feinstein and Congresswoman Slaughter tried to clear up what they call common misconceptions about their legislation:

The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act does not ban the use of antibiotics. And in fact we share your belief banning all uses of antibiotics would be counterproductive. Instead, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act addresses usage of seven antibiotics that are critical in human medicine, phasing them out for non-therapeutic uses in livestock production.

While I support the proposed legislation to limit antibiotic use in food animals, I have continually made it clear that the current language in PAMTA should be stronger.  I believe the concession to only focus on the so-called “seven antibiotics that are critical in human medicine” weakens the bill. If we are going to be up front with the public, we must make it clear that bacteria don’t differentiate between types of antibiotics, whether they are approved for human medicine or not.

Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, professor of environmental health sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, recently testified before Pennsylvania’s state legislature regarding its own proposed legislation to limit antibiotic use in food animals. She warned that, “bacteria respond to chemical structures, not brand names, and resistance to one member of a pharmaceutical class results in cross resistance to all other members of the same class.” For example, she noted that resistance in campylobacter (a nasty bug that the USDA says is the second most frequently reported cause for foodborne illness) to the antibiotic enrofloxicin (an antibiotic approved for pets and other domestic animals, commonly called Baytril) results in resistance to the very important human therapeutic antibiotic ciprofloxacin. Both antibiotics are two of more than 30 variations of the fluroquinolone class of antibiotics. As Silbergeld explains when bacteria develop resistance to one member of that class of antibiotics it can be resistant to all.

Authors made certain that language in PAMTA would ensure that any, “derivative of a drug that is used in humans or intended for use in humans to treat or prevent disease or infection caused by microorganisms,” would be banned from being used as a growth promoter in food animals. But–and this is a big “but”–the bill does not address the fact that the use of any antibiotic can lead to a pool of resistance that can affect every antibiotic class–important to both human and animal medicine.

Silbergeld has long warned that antibiotic resistant bacteria can share the genes (bits of DNA) that code for resistance with other bacteria in the environment and therefore readily transfer antibiotic resistance.  Sharing genes between bacteria is almost as easy for these organisms as forwarding an email to a friend; only bacteria are exchanging genetic code information. Resistance genes for multiple classes of antibiotics can be shared in the same “email,” or what scientists call plasmid “cassettes.”  For instance, some isolates of Salmonella and Campylobacter have been found to have taken up a “cassette” of resistance genes that protect them from as many as 17 different antibiotic drugs.

What this means is that not only can bacteria share resistance genes within the same class of antibiotics such as the fluoroquinolines class antibiotics containing enrofloxicin (restricted for veterinary use) and ciprofloxacin (critical to human medicine), but also bacteria have the capability of exchanging resistance genes between different classes of antibiotics like we’ve seen in Salmonella and Campylobacter. Allowing the non-therapeutic use of any antibiotic in food animals, regardless of whether it is defined as important to human medicine or not, could still lead to the development of bacteria that are resistant to an antibiotic that you and I may one day depend on.

The concept behind PAMTA is an important one. We must stop wasting one of medicine’s most important lifesaving discoveries simply as a way to increase the growth of food animals and subsequently profit for the food industry. If PAMTA is not passed this year I hope that the next version would follow more closely the recommendations from the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production’s final report, which calls for “the phasing out and then banning the non-therapeutic use of [ALL] antimicrobials in food animal production.”

Of course, that’s a primary theme of New York Times columnist Mark Bittman’s new book, Food Matters. He writes convincingly about the benefits of switching to a more plant-based diet, asserting, “By reducing the amount of meat we eat, we can grow and kill fewer animals. That means less environmental damage, including climate change; fewer antibiotics in the water and food supplies; fewer pesticides and herbicides; reduced cruelty; and so on. It also means better health for you.”

Bittman joins Michael Pollan in his crusade to get us to eat lower on the food chain. After all, Pollan’s In Defense of Food last year popularized among sustainable food advocates the slogan, “Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

But it’s not just food icons urging that we lay off the animals a bit in favor of a saner, more humane and environmentally friendlier diet. Even local government officials, recognizing the importance of reducing the number of animals in our diets, are joining the chorus. In the land of half-smokes and hot dogs, Chicago’s health commissioner, Dr. Terry Mason, made headlines last month when he asked city residents to go vegetarian during January. Indeed, this is Mason’s fourth year trying to bring Chicago’s waistlines in shape and blood pressure and cholesterol levels down by urging a vegetarian start to the new near.

And in Ohio, the official Green Cincinnati Plan task force is asking that citizens reduce their global warming contribution by choosing to eat more plants and fewer animals. The city is reportedly contemplating making t-shirts to promote the initiative that read “Fight Global Warming, One Bite at a Time” and “Cooling the Earth …With My Fork!”

Of all the changes we generally think about in order to shrink our carbon footprint, cutting back on meat, eggs, and dairy may not be the first thing that comes to mind. But it should be.

The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization found that the animal agriculture sector actually generates more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector, including cars, trucks, SUVs, airplanes and ships.

That’s to say that, of course, we should be concerned about whether we drive a gas guzzler or a gas sipper (if we drive at all), but at the same time we simply cannot ignore what we put in our mouths three—or more—times a day. Every time we sit down to eat, we can control how much we want to contribute to global warming, and by eating more plants and fewer animals, we can take a positive step in the right direction.

In addition to the clear environmental and public health benefits, choosing more vegetarian options is also helpful in preventing cruelty to animals. More than a million animals (nearly all chickens) are slaughtered for food every single hour in the United States alone. Most of them are raised in conditions so cruel and inhumane that few of us would even want to bear witness to their misery, let alone partake in it. So long as we’re raising animals in such vast numbers, extreme cruelty will continue to be the norm. As Mark Bittman writes, “If you hate factory farming (and you should), your primary concern should be reducing consumption.”

Very few issues have such clear connections among public health, animal welfare, environmental concern, and food sustainability. Whether we support one, some, or all of these movements, the time couldn’t be better to look down at our plates and recognize that we can simply live and let live—in so many ways—just by opting for the veggie burger.

Editor’s note: Listen to Mark Bittman speak about his new book Food Matters on yesterday’s Leonard Lopate Show on New York Public Radio: