The Trump administration announced last week that it wants Americans to consume more protein, churning out a colorful illustration of an inverted food pyramid that prominently features a big, red steak, a wedge of cheese, and a carton of whole milk at the top and claiming it’s “ending the war on protein.” It may seem like another example of cartoonish propaganda from an administration that essentially runs on memes, but don’t be fooled: It signals a marked turn from previous advice that encouraged Americans to limit high-fat sources of protein like red meat and whole milk for their health, which can incidentally also curb planet-heating pollution from the beef and dairy industries.
“The milk mustache is back,” says an X post from the US Department of Agriculture showing an image of President Donald Trump sporting one while leaning over a glass of milk.
There’s been plenty of debate over how fair it is to judge individual consumers for the carbon footprint of food systems, especially when a person’s choices might be limited. Plus, the environmental impact of what we eat depends a lot on the way industries conduct their business, experts tell The Verge. Besides, the US stopped using the food pyramid as an official guide in 2011, and survey data shows Americans don’t follow federal nutritional recommendations anyway. But if the Trump administration’s new dietary guidelines actually result in real changes to American food production and diets, that could wind up leading to more of the pollution that exacerbates climate change.
“The milk mustache is back”
“I’m kind of a big believer in it all matters because at the end of the day, it is true that every action matters, and every ton of greenhouse gas omitted or not omitted matters,” says Richard Waite, director for agriculture initiatives at the nonprofit World Resources Institute (WRI).
Waite and his team estimated the hypothetical climate impact of Americans eating more protein in accordance with the updated federal guidelines. The Trump administration raised the recommendation to roughly 1.2–1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day (about 0.54–0.73 grams per pound of body weight per day). Already, Americans eat about 1.0–1.3 grams per day — within the lower range of the new recommendations. However, if they moved up to the higher end of that range, that would be about a 25 percent increase in protein consumption.
WRI estimates that such an increase in Americans eating any kind of protein, whether it comes from animal or plant sources, could require up to 100 million acres of additional agricultural land each year, roughly as big as the state of California. The climate impact of that could be equivalent to hundreds of millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide emissions, according to WRI.
Waite is quick to caution that this is a thought experiment. Federal surveys show that American diets don’t align with recommendations for most food groups and nutrients, in part because folks are eating away from home more often, and those meals on the go are typically less nutritious. The cost and availability of healthy foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables, can also be a stumbling block.
The environmental impact of a meal varies depending on what sources of protein people eat. Cattle and other hoofed animals with similar digestive systems like sheep and goats are a bigger concern than chicken or plant-based proteins. Protein from meat requires more land for raising animals and growing their feed. Cows have a digestive process that’s less efficient at turning feed into food humans can eat. They also belch methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide even though it’s shorter-lived in the atmosphere.
The climate impact could be equivalent to hundreds of millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide emissions
... continue reading