Published on
Updated
Reading 5 mins.
By dint of quantified assessments and recommendations that contradict each other in a multitude of studies, we no longer really know what rules to follow to eat without having too much of an impact on the planet. A few days before the Christmas meal, we decided to take a step back from all these injunctions in order to add nuance and compose a festive menu with common sense.
Ecological Christmas: favor local food
Prefer a turkey raised a few kilometers from home or buy a liter of milk harvested from the nearest farm… Choosing local is an act of solidarity and support for French producers, less an ecological gesture. Claiming as a solution to reduce the carbon footprint of human activity on the planet, this advice needs to be followed with nuance. The environmental cost of transporting food goods is a reality: buying an avocado produced in Peru when you live in Paris has a greater impact on the planet than preferring Corsican clementines when you live in Ajaccio. In Nature Food magazine, a team of researchers from the universities of Sydney and Beijing indicated last June that the kilometers swallowed by the transport of food represented nearly 20% of the total emissions of food production chains. “To mitigate the environmental impact of food, a transition to plant-based foods must be coupled with more local products, mainly in rich countries“, concludes the study.
Everything is said: more than local production, it is the choice of food that changes the game. It is indeed necessary to take into account the greenhouse gas emissions of the various food productions to determine the impact that our preferences can have. This is what a study of the global platform did Our world in data by comparing the impact of converting land for livestock or crops, but also everything that a farm can emit, be it manure or the fuel needed for the tractor, as well as the food to support the livestock, transport or even packaging and sale. In this scheme, beef, lamb, cheese and dairy cows are successively the food products that emit the most greenhouse gases and the carbon footprint of the transport of goods is minimal. In other words, composing a Christmas menu including a beef steak, even produced in a radius close to home, has a considerable environmental impact. An exception must be made, and the Our World of Data study makes this clear: food transported by air generates fifty times more CO2 than a boat per tonne-kilometre. In food production chains, however, this type of transport would be little used, representing only 0.16% of “food miles“.
Cooking differently than with a gas stove
In these times of sobriety, the use of the sacrosanct gas cooker is called into question by more and more chefs who see a way to save money, but also to better preserve the well-being of their brigade which must otherwise cope with the heat of this type of energy. If we take into account the environmental aspect, the abandonment of the gas stove can also be an argument. Cows are often blamed for emitting methane when they digest their meal. However, the cooking appliance deeply rooted in French gastronomic culture also produces it. The annual methane emissions from all US fireplace gas stoves would have a climate impact similar to the rate of CO2 emitted by 500,000 cars each year, according to research published by the American Chemical Society. And we’re not just talking about the time of cooking. It is estimated that gas stoves can emit up to 1.3% of the gas as unburned methane.
Alcohols: prefer responsible containers
When it comes to pairing wines and spirits, it’s hard to recommend one beverage over another. We could mention the use of pesticides for the cultivation of grapes, corn, barley, etc. But, one could also underline the large quantity of water necessary for the elaboration of various alcoholic beverages. According to the organization Water Footprint Network, 109 liters of water would be needed to produce just one glass of wine. According to sources, it takes between 40 and 100 liters of water to produce one liter of whisky. On the beer side, four to six liters of water are used knowing that the Brasseurs de France were enthusiastic in 2019 about the 30% reduction in the average consumption of water for the manufacture and cleaning of the tanks during over the past thirty years.
In total, the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the alcohol sector are estimated at 0.7%. To lessen the environmental impact of party pairings, more thought should actually be given to the conditioning and packaging of beverages. In an in-depth survey published last month, the Revue du vin de France highlighted the preponderant responsibility (up to 50%) of the glass bottle in the carbon footprint of the wine industry, especially when plastic corks are included. . We should therefore review our habits, in particular by preferring the bag-in-box, this cardboard box fitted with a tap, which has a bad reputation because it is anchored in people’s minds, like the packaging of poor quality wines. If we have to concede that it cannot be used for the aging of grands crus, its carbon footprint is much better than the glass bottle. A BIB (bag-in-box) of three liters would consume 70 grams of CO2 per liter when the second would display 675 grams of CO2 per liter, according to the brand Collection verre après verre, which markets wines from castles in this type of container. What about the can of wine? Announced as a future success promised to a growth of 13.2% by 2028, its use is interesting in several ways: aluminum is fully recyclable while its manufacture requires a lower temperature than for glass. Still, the bacchanalian offer packaged in cans is extremely poor, not to mention our deeply rooted traditions that prevent us from wanting to toast with a can rather than a champagne flute…
To reduce the carbon footprint of our drinkable choices, we can still follow some good clues: identify the houses and estates that respect the specifications of organic farming (AB logo), or even identify the vineyards that follow the principles of biodynamics (Demeter or Biodyvin). An even more drastic selection can be made with wines identified by the Vin nature & progress certification, adopted by winegrowers who consider the AB label not strict enough. To choose a natural wine when you are unfamiliar with it, you can spot the brand new “Vin method nature” logo, whose specifications still tolerate a limited dose of sulphites. On the other hand, there must be no input or additive in wines stamped with the AVN logo (association of natural wines) or the SAINS wine association (without any input or added sulphites.