Seeking Sustainability

 Resize text         Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

In September, McDonald’s Corporation’s vice president of sustainability, Bob Langert, talked to Bloomberg News about his company’s efforts to pursue sustainability, a subject that he said “is everybody’s business now.”

Langert spoke of beef specifically and the difficulty of knowing what sustainable beef really means, saying, “Can we say we’re buying any sustainable beef today? No, we can’t. Could we be buying sustainable beef? We might be. What I mean by that is that there are no standards, measures, accountability and traceability to make those claims today.”

When companies like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart are talking about sustainability and taking part in the Global Conference on Sustainable Beef, it’s a sure sign that there is consumer interest in the subject. But the problem of a definition remains. “Organic” has parameters outlined by the USDA; “sustainable” does not.

Sustainability is a hot topic in the world of seafood, too, and that industry has made extensive efforts to address the subject itself. The widely used Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch offers its own color-coded ranking of seafood varieties that follows a simple rating system: Best Choice, Good Alternative, Avoid. On its website, consumers can click on different fish and learn more about where and how they’re raised and caught . The group offers regional pocket guides, mobile guides and a chart that provides sustainable alternatives to the least sustainable seafood. Shoppers standing at the fish counter can go to their app before deciding what to buy.

Other guides do exist — Target is using seafood sustainability ratings from the Marine Stewardship Council or the Global Aquaculture Alliance as it moves to selling only sustainable seafood by 2015 — but there appears to be at least a broad base of agreement among them about what sustainability means in the sea.

On land, things certainly seem more complex. Grass-fed beef is often mentioned in connection with sustainability, but there’s little agreement on it. A recent op-ed in the New York Times declared, “Grass-grazing cows emit considerably more methane than grain-fed cows...It requires 2 to 20 acres to raise a cow on grass. If we raised all the cows in the United States on grass (all 100 million of them), cattle would require (using the figure of 10 acres per cow) almost half the country’s land...” That author concluded avoiding animal products was the true sustainable choice. The beef industry itself also disputes the notion that grass-fed beef is always more sustainable, pointing out, for example, that it takes grass-fed cattle longer to reach market weight, meaning their production requires more land and water and produces more manure.

Others point to organic production as part of the definition of more sustainable beef. That may not be right either, according to the beef industry. The Sustainable Beef Resource Center points to new research demonstrating that if some of the inputs that organic beef production eschews (including ionophores and steroid implants) were withdrawn, 17 million more acres of land and 138 billion more gallons of water would be required to produce the same total amount of beef.

In its own search for increased sustainability, McDonald’s has its initial efforts focused on five areas, which its analysis suggested held the greatest potential for positive change: poultry, coffee, palm oil, packaging and beef. The last may prove to be the toughest.


Prev 1 2 Next All



Comments (2) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

KE    
Richland, wa  |  November, 16, 2012 at 03:27 PM

Pretty sure that the word 'corn', as the main feed source for the cattle industry, should be mentioned in this article with a short/balanced discussion. Corn production and inappropriate forced usage of corn in this and other down- stream industries is a very hot topic in the sustainability world, and it is VERY closely tied to the beef industry.

maxine    
SD  |  November, 26, 2012 at 04:50 PM

The previous comment leaves me with several questions; What is meant by "the main feed source for the cattle industry"? I ask because many cattle as do ours, graze for most of their life, IF they are fed corn at all. Further, IF/WHEN they are fed corn, it certainly is not the majority of the diet at that time. Cattle NEED roughage as in grasses/forbs in their diet, don't they??? Next, What is meant by "forced" usage of corn? How is it possible to force a cow to eat? And, as previously, isn't it necessary for cattle to eat a considerable amount of roughages? What is meant by the term "...it is VERY closely tied to the beef industry"?


Brutus®

Brutus is the first side-by-side utility vehicle in the market to deliver front-end power take-off capability. Each Brutus model is ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight