Energy for Breakfast, Help Needed

Hello John,

Alan Durning wrote a book called "Stuff: the Secret Life of Everyday Things." Each chapter follows him throughout his day, beginning with his morning coffee, and enumerates the ecological footprint behind the everyday items in our lives. His bibliographic resources would be useful to you. Also Michael Pollan's book on The Omnivore's Dilemma is also filled with statistics about the fossil fuel behind our food supply. _http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/beef.html_ (http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/beef.html) Here's an article on the fossil fuel used to power a human riding his bicycle.

And here is an article on the fossil fuel in breakfast:

My Saudi Arabian Breakfast
By Chad Heeter
TomDispatch.com
Friday 24 March 2006

Please join me for breakfast. It's time to fuel up again. On the table in my small Berkeley apartment this particular morning is a healthy looking little meal - a bowl of imported McCann's Irish oatmeal topped with Cascadian Farms organic frozen raspberries, and a cup of Peet's Fair Trade Blend coffee. Like most of us, I prepare my breakfast at home and the ingredients for this one probably cost me about $1.25. (If I went to a caf in downtown Berkeley, I'd likely have to add another $6.00, plus tip for the same.) My breakfast fuels me up with about 400 calories, and it satisfies me. So, for just over a buck and half an hour spent reading the morning paper in my own kitchen, I'm energized for the next few hours. But before I put spoon to cereal, what if I consider this bowl of oatmeal porridge (to which I've just added a little butter, milk, and a shake of salt) from a different perspective. Say, a Saudi Arabian one. Then, what you'd be likely to see - what's really there, just hidden from our view (not to say our taste buds) - is about four ounces of crude oil. Throw in those luscious red raspberries and that cup of java (another three ounces of crude), and don't forget those modest additions of butter, milk, and salt (another ounce), and you've got a tiny bit of the Middle East right here in my kitchen. Now, let's drill a little deeper into this breakfast. Just where does this tiny gusher of oil actually come from? (We'll let this oil represent all fossil fuels in my breakfast, including natural gas and coal.) Nearly 20% of this oil went into growing my raspberries on Chilean farms many thousands of miles away, those oats in the fields of County Kildare, Ireland, and that specially-raised coffee in Guatemala - think tractors as well as petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides. The next 40% of my breakfast fossil-fuel equation is burned up between the fields and the grocery store in processing, packaging, and shipping. Take that box of McCann's oatmeal. On it is an inviting image of pure, healthy goodness - a bowl of porridge, topped by two peach slices. Scattered around the bowl are a handful of raw oats, what look to be four acorns, and three fresh raspberries. Those raw oats are actually a reminder that the flakes require a few steps twixt field and box. In fact, a visit to McCann's website illustrates each step in the cleaning, steaming, hulling, cutting, and rolling that turns the raw oats into edible flakes. Those five essential steps require significant energy costs. Next, my oat flakes go into a plastic bag (made from oil), which is in turn inserted into an energy-intensive, pressed wood-pulp, printed paper box. Only then does my "breakfast" leave Ireland and travel over 5,000 fuel-gorging, CO2-emitting miles by ship and truck to my grocery store in California. Coming from another hemisphere, my raspberries take an even longer fossil-fueled journey to my neighborhood. Though packaged in a plastic bag labeled Cascadian Farms (which perhaps hints at a birthplace in the good old Cascade mountains of northwest Washington), the small print on the back, stamped "A Product of Chile," tells all - and what it speaks of is a 5,800-mile journey to Northern California. If you've been adding up percentages along the way, perhaps you've noticed that a few tablespoons of crude oil in my bowl have not been accounted for. That final 40% of the fossil fuel in my breakfast is used up by the simple acts of keeping food fresh and then preparing it. In home kitchens and restaurants, the chilling in refrigerators and the cooking on stoves using electricity or natural gas gobbles up more energy than you might imagine. For decades, scientists have calculated how much fossil fuel goes into our food by measuring the amount of energy consumed in growing, packing, shipping, consuming, and finally disposing of it. The "caloric input" of fossil fuel is then compared to the energy available in the edible product, the "caloric output." What they've discovered is astonishing. According to researchers at the University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Agriculture, an average of over seven calories of fossil fuel is burned up for every calorie of energy we get from our food. This means that in eating my 400 calorie breakfast, I will, in effect, have "consumed" 2,800 calories of fossil-fuel energy. (Some researchers claim the ratio to be as high as ten to one.) But this is only an average. My cup of coffee gives me only a few calories of energy, but to process just one pound of coffee requires over 8,000 calories of fossil-fuel energy - the equivalent energy found in nearly a quart of crude oil, 30 cubic feet of natural gas, or around two and a half pounds of coal. So how do you gauge how much oil went into your food? First check out how far it traveled. The further it traveled, the more oil it required. Next, gauge how much processing went into the food. A fresh apple is not processed, but Kellogg's Apple Jacks cereal requires enormous amounts of energy to process. The more processed the food, the more oil it required. Then consider how much packaging is wrapped around your food. Buy fresh vegetables instead of canned, and buy bulk beans, grains, and flour if you want to reduce that packaging. By now, you're thinking that you're in the clear, because you eat strictly organically-grown foods. When it comes to fossil-fuel calculations though, the manner in which food's grown is where differences stop. Whether conventionally-grown or organically-grown, a raspberry is shipped, packed, and chilled the same way. Yes, there are some savings from growing organically, but possibly only of a slight nature. According to a study by David Pimentel at Cornell University, 30% of fossil-fuel expenditure on farms growing conventional (non-organic) crops is found in chemical fertilizer. This 30% is not consumed on organic farms, but only if the manure used as fertilizer is produced in very close proximity to the farm. Manure is a heavy, bulky product. If farms have to truck bulk manure for any distance over a few miles, the savings are eaten up in diesel-fuel consumption, according to Pimentel. One source of manure for organic farmers in California is the chicken producer Foster Farms. Organic farmers in Monterey County, for example, will have to truck tons of Foster's manure from their main plant in Livingston, Ca. to fields over one hundred miles away. So the next time we're at the grocer, do we now have to ask not only where and how this product was grown, but how far its manure was shipped? Well, if you're in New York City picking out a California-grown tomato that was fertilized with organic compost made from kelp shipped from Nova Scotia, maybe it's not such a bad question. But should we give up on organic? If you're buying organic raspberries from Chile each week, then yes. The fuel cost is too great, as is the production of the greenhouse gases along with it. Buying locally-grown foods should be the first priority when it comes to saving fossil fuel. But if there were really truth in packaging, on the back of my oatmeal box where it now tells me how many calories I get from each serving, it would also tell me how many calories of fossil fuels went into this product. On a scale from one to five - with one being non-processed, locally-grown products and five being processed, packaged imports - we could quickly average the numbers in our shopping cart to get a sense of the ecological footprint of our diet. From this we would gain a truer sense of the miles-per-gallon in our food. What appeared to be a simple, healthy meal of oatmeal, berries, and coffee looks different now. I thought I was essentially driving a Toyota Prius hybrid - by having a very fuel-efficient breakfast, but by the end of the week I've still eaten the equivalent of over two quarts of Valvoline. From the perspective of fossil-fuel consumption, I now look at my breakfast as a waste of precious resources. And what about the mornings that I head to Denny's for a Grand-Slam breakfast: eggs, pancakes, bacon, sausage? On those mornings - forget about fuel efficiency - I'm driving a Hummer. What I eat for breakfast connects me to the planet, deep into its past with the fossilized remains of plants and animals which are now fuel, as well as into its future, when these non-renewable resources will likely be in scant supply. Maybe these thoughts are too grand to be having over breakfast, but I'm not the only one on the planet eating this morning. My meal traveled thousands of miles around the world to reach my plate. But then there's the rise of perhaps 600 million middle-class Indians and Chinese. They're already demanding the convenience of packaged meals and the taste of foreign flavors. What happens when middle-class families in India or China decide they want their Irish oats for breakfast, topped by organic raspberries from Chile? They'll dip more and more into the planet's communal oil well. And someday soon, we'll all suck it dry.

Chad Heeter grew up eating fossil fuels in Lee's Summit, Missouri. He's a freelance writer, documentary filmmaker, and a former high school science teacher.

Gay Nicholson, Ph.D.
Sustainable Tompkins Program Coordinator
_www.sustainabletompkins.org_ (http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/)
607-533-7312 (home office)
607-279-6618 (cell)
1 Maple Avenue Lansing, NY 14882
[email protected]
Southern Tier Energy$mart Communities
Regional Coordinator
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County
615 Willow Ave., Ithaca, NY 14850
[email protected]

One article that I came across recently is from the Earth Policy Institute http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2005/Update48.htm It's US based data but Australia will be similar.

And from the 321energy site in the UK http://www.321energy.com/editorials/church/church040205.html

There is also this wide ranging article that discusses the issues in a more general way http://www.museletter.com/archive/159.html

Finally there is an article from the San Fransisco Chronical http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/26/ING3PHRU681.DTL that adds up the oil in Breakfast.

However, the author fails to take into account his trip to the store which will probably add more than all the rest put together if he travels by car (eg. 10Km round trip at 10L/100km is another 1L petrol plus all the transport and processing to make and deliver it to the petrol station etc. etc. etc.)

Hope this helps

Cheers
MOC

Dear John,

A friend of mine works at Sydney University's Integrated Sustainability Analysis. The ISA does this sort of work, calculating greenhouse values of various product inputs. They also conduct consultancies on calculating ecological footprints for specific scenarios.

ISA's website at: http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/ has a collection of publications and links that may assist.

Regards:
Mark McGrath
Director Social Change Media Group Pty Ltd

Hi John,

I recently attended a Green Capital breakfast seminar here in Sydney. Green Capital had the University of Sydney's Integrated Sustainability Analysis (ISA) Group calculate the "footprint" of the food we had for breakfast. Maybe look at www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au.

Cheers
Shauna Coffey

Senior Consultant
Sustainability Services
Hyder Consulting
direct ph 02 8907 8216
ph 02 8907 9000 fax 02 8907 9001
mobile 0410 227 031
Locked Bag 6503
North Sydney, NSW, 2060
www.hyderconsulting.com

In a world where most people don't have enough to eat isn't a question about the environmental footprint of the breakfast of overfed Westerners missing the point! The enviromental footprint is the total amount of food (kilojoules) consumed daily - regardless of source. Any other discussion is flawed, and frankly offensive. For a small footprint breakfast try a bowl of rice washed down with a large dose of gratitude.

Peta

Any discussion that highlights and educates people about resource overuse and waste is an important discussion to have. The environmental footprint is not just about kilojoules consumed but how those kilojoules got to you and in what form. For an even smaller footprint try a potato grown in your own backyard with no other inputs. We are really talking about different aspects of the same problems, particularly about the inequitable distribution of resources and the associated waste largely by people who simply do not have any real understanding of their impacts.

Cheers
MOC

The UK organisation SUSTAIN has written a report called 'eating oil'. Our modern food production systems use over 100 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food. This compares to subsistence agricultural methods that used to produce 30 calories of food for every calorie of input. And the economists think that things are done more efficiently these days...

The report is at http://www.sustainweb.org/chain_fm_eat.asp

Sustain's home page is www.sustainweb.org -

I would like to echo Mike's earlier comment that understanding the ecological footprint in terms of energy cost is indeed a pertinent and valid issue to discuss. Yes, we do live in a world where the vast majority has little to no food to eat, and understanding the connection between energy inputs vs. outputs in a food source is absolutely vital as we develop ways to effeciently get food to those who desperately need it...and to do so in a long-term sustainable way. We cannot feed the world on the flawed mentality of western culture's agricultural systems where we pour energy into both production, packaging and distribution of food. To someone who is starving, all they think about is the next meal...basic survival, and we certainly need to respond to the immediate necessity. To think in terms of long-term agricultural systems is even more important, seeing how world population is not decreasing anytime soon, and environmental degradation is increasing ever more dramatically. We absolutely must be thinking in terms of the amount of energy we pour into our basic food production, here, and abroad.

Subject: The Oil in Your Food

Fossil Fuel For Breakfast
By Chad Heeter,
Tomdispatch.com
Posted on March 29, 2006, Printed on March 30, 2006
_http://www.alternet.org/story/34073/
_ (http://www.alternet.org/story/34073/)

Please join me for breakfast. It's time to fuel up again. On the table in my small Berkeley apartment this particular morning is a healthy looking little meal -- a bowl of imported McCann's Irish oatmeal topped with Cascadian Farms organic frozen raspberries, and a cup of Peet's Fair Trade Blend coffee. Like most of us, I prepare my breakfast at home and the ingredients for this one probably cost me about $1.25. (If I went to a cafe in downtown Berkeley, I'd likely have to add another $6, plus tip for the same..) My breakfast fuels me up with about 400 calories, and it satisfies me. So, for just over a buck and half an hour spent reading the morning paper in my own kitchen, I'm energized for the next few hours. But before I put spoon to cereal, what if I consider this bowl of oatmeal porridge (to which I've just added a little butter, milk, and a shake of salt) from a different perspective. Say, a Saudi Arabian one. Then, what you'd be likely to see -- what's really there, just hidden from our view (not to say our taste buds) -- is about four ounces of crude oil. Throw in those luscious red raspberries and that cup of java (another three ounces of crude), and don't forget those modest additions of butter, milk, and salt (another ounce), and you've got a tiny bit of the Middle East right here in my kitchen. Now, let's drill a little deeper into this breakfast. Just where does this tiny gusher of oil actually come from? (We'll let this oil represent all fossil fuels in my breakfast, including natural gas and coal.) Nearly 20% of this oil went into growing my raspberries on Chilean farms many thousands of miles away, those oats in the fields of County Kildare, Ireland, and that specially-raised coffee in Guatemala -- think tractors as well as petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides. The next 40% of my breakfast fossil-fuel equation is burned up between the fields and the grocery store in processing, packaging, and shipping. Take that box of McCann's oatmeal. On it is an inviting image of pure, healthy goodness -- a bowl of porridge, topped by two peach slices. Scattered around the bowl are a handful of raw oats, what look to be four acorns, and three fresh raspberries. Those raw oats are actually a reminder that the flakes require a few steps twixt field and box. In fact, a visit to McCann's website illustrates each step in the cleaning, steaming, hulling, cutting, and rolling that turns the raw oats into edible flakes. Those five essential steps require significant energy costs. Next, my oat flakes go into a plastic bag (made from oil), which is in turn inserted into an energy-intensive, pressed wood-pulp, printed paper box. Only then does my "breakfast" leave Ireland and travel over 5,000 fuel-gorging, CO2-emitting miles by ship and truck to my grocery store in California. Coming from another hemisphere, my raspberries take an even longer fossil-fueled journey to my neighborhood. Though packaged in a plastic bag labeled Cascadian Farms (which perhaps hints at a birthplace in the good old Cascade mountains of northwest Washington), the small print on the back, stamped "Product of Chile" tells all -- and what it speaks of is a 5,800-mile journey to Northern California. If you've been adding up percentages along the way, perhaps you've noticed that a few tablespoons of crude oil in my bowl have not been accounted for. That final 40% of the fossil fuel in my breakfast is used up by the simple acts of keeping food fresh and then preparing it. In home kitchens and restaurants, the chilling in refrigerators and the cooking on stoves using electricity or natural gas gobbles up more energy than you might imagine. For decades, scientists have calculated how much fossil fuel goes into our food by measuring the amount of energy consumed in growing, packing, shipping, consuming, and finally disposing of it. The "caloric input" of fossil fuel is then compared to the energy available in the edible product, the "caloric output." What they've discovered is astonishing. According to researchers at the University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Agriculture, an average of over seven calories of fossil fuel is burned up for every calorie of energy we get from our food. This means that in eating my 400 calorie breakfast, I will, in effect, have "consumed" 2,800 calories of fossil-fuel energy. (Some researchers claim the ratio to be as high as ten to one.) But this is only an average. My cup of coffee gives me only a few calories of energy, but to process just one pound of coffee requires over 8,000 calories of fossil-fuel energy -- the equivalent energy found in nearly a quart of crude oil, 30 cubic feet of natural gas, or around two and a half pounds of coal. So how do you gauge how much oil went into your food? First check out how far it traveled. The further it traveled, the more oil it required. Next, gauge how much processing went into the food. A fresh apple is not processed, but Kellogg's Apple Jacks cereal requires enormous amounts of energy to process. The more processed the food, the more oil it required.. Then consider how much packaging is wrapped around your food. Buy fresh vegetables instead of canned, and buy bulk beans, grains, and flour if you want to reduce that packaging. By now, you're thinking that you're in the clear, because you eat strictly organically-grown foods. When it comes to fossil-fuel calculations though, the manner in which food's grown is where differences stop. Whether conventionally-grown or organically-grown, a raspberry is shipped, packed, and chilled the same way. Yes, there are some savings from growing organically, but possibly only of a slight nature. According to a study by David Pimentel at Cornell University, 30% of fossil-fuel expenditure on farms growing conventional (non-organic) crops is found in chemical fertilizer. This 30% is not consumed on organic farms, but only if the manure used as fertilizer is produced in very close proximity to the farm. Manure is a heavy, bulky product. If farms have to truck bulk manure for any distance over a few miles, the savings are eaten up in diesel-fuel consumption, according to Pimentel. One source of manure for organic farmers in California is the chicken producer Foster Farms. Organic farmers in Monterey County, for example, will have to truck tons of Foster's manure from their main plant in Livingston, Ca. to fields over 100 miles away. So the next time we're at the grocer, do we now have to ask not only where and how this product was grown, but how far its manure was shipped? Well, if you're in New York City picking out a California-grown tomato that was fertilized with organic compost made from kelp shipped from Nova Scotia, maybe it's not such a bad question. But should we give up on organic? If you're buying organic raspberries from Chile each week, then yes. The fuel cost is too great, as is the production of the greenhouse gases along with it. Buying locally-grown foods should be the first priority when it comes to saving fossil fuel. But if there were really truth in packaging, on the back of my oatmeal box where it now tells me how many calories I get from each serving, it would also tell me how many calories of fossil fuels went into this product. On a scale from one to five -- with one being non-processed, locally-grown products and five being processed, packaged imports -- we could quickly average the numbers in our shopping cart to get a sense of the ecological footprint of our diet. From this we would gain a truer sense of the miles-per-gallon in our food. What appeared to be a simple, healthy meal of oatmeal, berries, and coffee looks different now. I thought I was essentially driving a Toyota Prius hybrid -- by having a very fuel-efficient breakfast, but by the end of the week I've still eaten the equivalent of over two quarts of Valvoline. From the perspective of fossil-fuel consumption, I now look at my breakfast as a waste of precious resources. And what about the mornings that I head to Denny's for a Grand-Slam breakfast: eggs, pancakes, bacon, sausage? On those mornings -- forget about fuel efficiency -- I'm driving a Hummer. What I eat for breakfast connects me to the planet, deep into its past with the fossilized remains of plants and animals which are now fuel, as well as into its future, when these non-renewable resources will likely be in scant supply. Maybe these thoughts are too grand to be having over breakfast, but I'm not the only one on the planet eating this morning. My meal traveled thousands of miles around the world to reach my plate. But then there's the rise of perhaps 600 million middle-class Indians and Chinese. They're already demanding the convenience of packaged meals and the taste of foreign flavors. What happens when middle-class families in India or China decide they want their Irish oats for breakfast, topped by organic raspberries from Chile? They'll dip more and more into the planet's communal oil well. And someday soon, we'll all suck it dry.

Chad Heeter is a freelance writer, documentary filmmaker and former high school science teacher.

2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: _http://www.alternet.org/story/34073/_ (http://www.alternet.org/story/34073/)

We need to make sure that any discussion about oil miles and food is not a furphy for wealthy countries discouraging imports from poorer developing communities. Food production is an extraordinarily politicised matter and it is too simplistic to base the entire discussion about costs on oil consumption alone. Let's do something about changing the behaviour of governments, producers and consumers with regard to farm subsidies and the relative cheapness of oil in those wealthy countries that do not tax its use. By making trade fair, and consuming less food over all wealthy Western countries will do a great deal to decrease the environmental footprint and make life better for those in developing countries.

Peta

An interesting discussion! The notion of Climate Justice is also relevant here: http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/Justice.asp I think its more offensive to *not* consider the greenhouse impacts of food miles, given that they are largely caused by the 'global consumer class', with the impacts (which include the effects of climate change on agriculture) of greenhouse largely falling on the less wealthy people in the world.

Sharon

Some of the work has been done for you and is presented in the book, "Stuff: The Secret Lives of Everyday Things" by Alan Durning of the NGO Sightline Institute (until recently, Northwest Environment Watch). If it's not available in your library, you can order it from Sightline. See link below for more info:

http://www.sightline.org/publications/books/stuff/stuff

http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/beef.html

Curt On-line class about systems thinking and life cycle analysis starting in June: http://www.mcad.edu/showPage.php?pageID=1410

More data about the impact of food on the environment. I know a bit about Life Cycle Analysis (it is covered in my summer class). One way to present the data is through ecological footprints, which individuals can calculate for themselves. Once they do this the impact of eating local food becomes very obvious, and several students have pledged to change their behaviors.

Curt Ecological footprints: http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/ecological_footprint_calculator.htm

Systems thinking course: http://www.mcad.edu/showPage.php?status=1&pageID=1410