Of course, you could go the other way: If the kosher-only omnivore replaced all the pork with chicken, their greenhouse emissions would drop to 1,216 pounds (552 kilograms) per annum. But if the "pork difference" were split equally between beef and chicken, the kosher-only meat diet would yield 1,460 pounds (662 kilograms) of emissions—about 6 percent more than the nonkosher diet.
What about shrimp? It takes 243 gallons (920 liters) of diesel fuel to trawl about 1.1 tons (one metric ton) of the shellfish, according to Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, making shrimp one of the most energy-intensive wild seafood harvests, with a footprint of 5,395 pounds (2,447 kilograms) of carbon dioxide per metric ton even before processing and transportation are taken into account. And shrimp farming (which provides well over one million metric tons of shrimp annually, about 25 percent of all shrimp consumed) has been linked to the destruction of almost half of the world's mangroves: coastal forests that absorb carbon dioxide and provide essential habitat for wild fish species. Crab, meanwhile, was among the least energy-intensive species to catch in the Dalhousie study, whereas the fuel needed to collect a ton of lobster swung wildly—ranging from 5.3 gallons (20 liters) per metric ton in Iceland to about 38 gallons (144 liters) in Maine to 271 gallons (1,025 liters) in Norway.
Just as with livestock, the ultimate green boost from kosher law's taboo on shrimp and other shellfish depends on what you eat in its place. Assuming that the kosher consumer replaces the average American's four pounds of shrimp a year (and its 9.79 pounds, or 4.4 kilograms, of carbon dioxide emissions) with another fish, Canadian North Atlantic herring is a good choice: it takes around 5.28 gallons (20 liters) of fuel to purse seine (net using two trawlers) a metric ton of these small fish, according to Dalhousie, releasing about 117 pounds (53 kilograms) of carbon dioxide—meaning four pounds of herring have a carbon footprint of a mere 0.21 pound (0.09 kilogram). Wild U.S. or Canadian salmon take an average of just over six gallons (23 liters) of fuel per metric ton to catch, releasing about 133 pounds (60 kilograms) of carbon dioxide. So eating four pounds of salmon a year would account for 0.24 pound (0.1 kilogram) of carbon dioxide. Both of these are obviously just a fraction of the 9.79 pounds of carbon dioxide for the shrimp eater.
Tuna are energy hogs by comparison, needing about 460 gallons (1,740 liters)—twice the fuel of trawling for shrimp—to harvest the same single metric ton of tuna. That adds up to a massive 10,212 pounds (4,632 kilograms) of carbon dioxide per catch. So eating four pounds a year would have a footprint of 18.5 pounds (8.4 kilograms) of carbon dioxide, almost twice the shrimp eater's footprint.
Kosher rules do remove some overfished wild species from your plate—such as sharks, which are in serious decline worldwide, according to the Monterey Aquarium's Seafood Watch program. On the other hand, some popular fish that are kosher, such as bluefin tuna and Chilean sea bass are also in peril.
Kosher rules also forbid mixing meat and dairy foods: No cheeseburgers, please. "The idea repeated three times in the Bible is, 'you shouldn't boil a kid in its mother's milk'," says Stern. This has evolved over the centuries into complex rules and practices to keep the two apart in the kitchen and the stomach as well as in the cooking pot. That means two sets of dishes. Doubling one's kitchenware would seem to run counter to the "less is more" mantra of contemporary environmentalism but, as Stern notes, because both sets are never used simultaneously, the useful life of each is likely extended over time.
Even though keeping kosher is not inherently more or less ecofriendly than a conventional diet, Stern notes that the small but growing kosher organic meat offerings, along with the overall boom in organic foods, make it easier to suffuse keeping kosher with her green values. And, of course, there are benefits that can't be counted by the numbers. "For me, keeping kosher is a spiritual commitment," Stern says. "It imbues the mundane with the sublime."
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentIs this correct?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeat Pounds of Greenhouse Gases released per Raised or Caught Pound
Beef 13.67
Pork 6.75
Tuna 4.63
Chicken 3.37
Shrimp 2.45
Wild Salmon 0.06
Wild Herring 0.05
Poorly titled story. There are better titles, "Is a Kosher diet any better for the Environment?" The current title leads to the answer, "No, a kosher diet is less environmentally friendly than a pork diet." The article is curious and informative, but the tone could have used some work. Also the Dairy & Meat law is a slight mis-interpretation many Jews observe. The bible verse quoted actually means you shall not eat veal. Or a Calf, or any animal that is still nursing. Many people back then boiled meats, just as they still do in Haiti and many parts of the world. Very few people can or could have afforded to boil food in milk. That is just a waste of milk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it really meant saving of all those mounds of greenhouse gases, going vegetarian is a much faster and safer way around it. Could not the article have used the entire data in a comparative fashion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting article. Although we keep a kosher kitchen, I am not sure it is better for one's health or environment. Kosher meat requires salt to draw out the blood, which is forbidden to eat. This salt finds its way to the wastewater and then, to recycled irrigation water. Most crops suffer if irrigated with water with high salt content and also contributes to the salination of soils. As an Israeli water engineer, the excess salt is quite a headache, as we recycle nearly all the water in this country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike many theoretical articles this one doesn't capture reality. For example, in reality, a lot of observant Jews stick to a highly vegetarian diet...so the conversion of pork to beef to support your theory is ...well....bull.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour article say, meat production generates 18 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse gases . So, wither you take your views from the supernatural or the natural, being a vegetarian seems to be a pretty good way of reducing your carbon foot print.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnforutnately, the article and much of the discussion fails to understand the significance of the separation of meat and dairy products observed by traditional Jews. "Keeping Kosher" involves more than refraining from eating animals proscribed by the Torah (Or more correctly eating only those limited number of creatures permitted). For example, most Orthodox and many Conservative Jews do not eat any dairy products until 6 hours after eating meat. That means that having any form of meat for breakfast would basically preclude a traditional Jew from having a dairy lunch or milk in his/her morning coffee (similarly a meat lunch would be problematic, delaying a dairy dinner to 7 or 8pm at the earliest). As a result the vast majority of observant Jews usually eat meat only once a day. That is the environmental significant of keeping kosher, not the beef for pork calculations offered by Emily Gertz .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought that this article was very interesting. I had no idea there were so many Americans trying to live a kosher lifestyle. It must be hard to try and stay kosher is a country that doesn't exactly follow kashrut. Good article!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDanielle
http://madefromacai.com/acai/kosher