4 ms·
That's some mighty fine green-washing going on there, as well as creating the illusion of a "premium" product for which they can justify a higher price. The se
by ForgottenPwd 3y ago
That's some mighty fine green-washing going on there, as well as creating the illusion of a "premium" product for which they can justify a higher price.
The self-reported "low carbon" certification doesn't seem to include the GHG produced by growing and transporting the feed to the cattle, the cattle to the abattoir, running the factory, distributing the beef, though, does it? I could not find those numbers anywhere.
It also elides the other issues with beef, such as water and land-use. A kcal of beef is going to cost hundreds more gallons of water to produce than a kcal of vegetables. What about nitrogen run-off into ground water from feed lots?
- civilitty 3y agoI don't know why the article doesn't mention it but most of the product is already premium: it's grass fed (and often grass finished) beef. It's low carbon because the ranchers don't need to buy them much food, but it's not a sustainable alternative for most of the country. The ranch I buy my annual half-cow from runs a sister ranch in Wyoming and they claim a 2:1 ratio of energy input to output in kcal simply because the cows roam. It's almost $5,000 for an XL whole cow though (compared to $2,000-3,000 elsewhere), so it's definitely an upmarket product. The GHG cost post slaughter depends too much on customer specifics though. Shipping half a cow to a single customer California is a lot worse than shipping 10 tons of beef to a supermarket or a large group of buyers.