We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A DIET HIGH in fruit and vegetables is better for the planet than one high in animal products, new research has confirmed.
The study, published in the Frontiers in Nutrition journal, also found that organic food provides significant additional climate benefits for plant-based diets, but not for diets with only moderate contribution from plant products.
This is the first study to investigate the environmental impacts of both dietary patterns and farm production systems. It is also the first to look into the environmental impact of organic food consumption using observed diets rather than models.
Many organisations, including the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, advocate the urgent adoption of more sustainable diets at a global level.
Such diets include reduced consumption of animal products, which have a higher environmental impact than plant-based products. This is mainly due to the high energy requirements of livestock farming, as well as the large contribution of livestock to greenhouse gas emissions.
Organic agriculture is largely considered more environmentally friendly than other modern production techniques. The researchers argue that while many studies have investigated environmentally sustainable diets, these have rarely considered both dietary choices and the production method of the foods consumed.
“We wanted to provide a more comprehensive picture of how different diets impact the environment,” study author Louise Second, of the French Agence De L’Environnement Et De La Maitrise L’Energie said.
To do this, the researchers obtained information on food intake and organic food consumption from more than 34,000 French adults.
They used what’s called a “provegetarian” score to determine preferences for plant-based or animal-based food products. The researchers also conducted production life cycle environmental impact assessments at the farm level against three environmental indicators: greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative energy demand and land occupation.
Seconda explained the results the team of researchers came upon: “Combining consumption and farm production data we found that across the board, diet-related environmental impacts were reduced with a plant-based diet – particularly greenhouse gas emissions.
The consumption of organic food added even more environmental benefits for a plant-based diet. In contrast, consumption of organic food did not add significant benefits to diets with high contribution from animal products and only moderate contribution from plant products.
The researchers did, however, caution that the environmental effects of production systems are not uniform and can be impacted by climate, soil type and farm management.
“We didn’t look at other indicators such as pesticide use, leaching and soil quality which are relevant to the environmental impacts of production systems,” Second said.
“Therefore, future studies could also consider these as well as supply chain and distribution impacts of food production.”
The authors said it will be important to conduct further studies to confirm these results and to expand our understanding of how the entire food production life cycle impacts sustainability.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Research sponsored by business belongs to business & is directed by business.
Education that educates students how to question, research and challenge is more useful.
“business not yet dictating entirety of education & research claims new survey”
Whoever carried out the survey mustn’t have known a single iota about research funding. These broad brush figures tell us nothing. Funding structures differ around the world and how industrial funding is viewed differs. The more prestigious the research group the less funding they’ll get from industry as they don’t want their research to be viewed as biased. Also the more not for profit funding that is available, the less there is need for industrial funding. So a country that is invested in research will rank poorly on this scale. I think ranking bottom speaks volumes for the quality of Irish research and reflects the government and charitable financial support both domestic and European that it is given.
Reads like an excuse Laura.
Been at the bottom is that a reflection that companies dont rate Ireland good enough to invest in for research except for the tax break?
As a researcher myself in an Irish university most of the research is funded through national or European grants so this story doesn’t tell the whole truth. South Korea probably don’t get much nationalfunding and have to get commercial funding. Therefore we are not that dependent on businesses to fund our research as well as universities here being capable of funding patents for new ideas and supporting researchers to start spin-out companies rather than immediately selling their ideas.
We don’t allow stem cell research
Which is stupid
All stem cell research or just stem cell research from embryos? Because scientists have now found different ways of extracting stem cells, e.g. from a placenta. I don’t see why there’d be an ethical embargo on these new sources…
All stem research, if I (or any member of my family) suffered third degree burns or lost the use of my legs or be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s (which is in my family) I wouldn’t care where they came from I’d just sign straight on the dotted line and so would any parent.
With you there retort. Not sure it is a bad thing to keep big business at arms length.advice is one thing financial input influencing direction is another. I am old enough now to appreciate the relevance of an arts degree. The question still remains are we a society or an economy?
Isn’t the whole point of it all that it remains UNBIASED research and education, what?? we going to have studies that say “criminal behaviour on the rise” says Tayto crisps
in short ladies and germs, keep the bankers out of schooling look what they did to employment !!
More industry investment would be good, but the low level achieved here in comparison to Asian economies may be more a reflection of increased state funding in Europe. Do grants from the Health Research Board, Science Federation of Ireland etc count as ‘industry’ funding in this study I wonder? The trend now is for industry to establish labs in collaboration with universities with salaried staff, and so infrastructural support needs to be accounted for as well. Measuring personal grant awards alone is not an accurate assessment of private funding at university level
100 years ago Universities worldwide operated like this.
We teach…
50 years ago Universities worldwide operated like this.
Governments believe we should teach….
While in Ireland Universities operated like this
We teach….
10 Years ago Universities worldwide operated like this.
Industry believes we should teach….
While in Ireland Universities operated like this
We teach….
Today Universities worldwide operate like this.
We work with Industry to develop new economic opportunities in fields such as….
While in Ireland Universities operate like this
We teach….
If Irish Universities had 50 years ago switched their thinking from teaching to working with industries there would not have been the need to set up the Industry loved Institutes of Technology. For example the Polymer (Plastic) Engineering in Athlone IT, or Product Design in Carlow IT, and other courses that are offered in Universities in other countries, but “resigned” to IT’s in Ireland. While the Irish Universities persist with Arts qualifications for teachers & civil servants, in other words people who will never work in industry, and so never contribute to Irish exports except for students leaving the country.
Korea’s goliath corporations (your Samsungs, LGs etc) hire straight out of the universities and provide jobs of such high social status that I wouldn’t be surprised if third level institutions just let them write their curricula. It’s also worth noting that Korea’s education system was designed from day one to provide industry with intelligent managers and well trained workers. It’s to be expected that there’d be some synergy between them.
The thing that bugs me about this is that it ignores a huge aspect of university subjects: the arts, humanities, social sciences, and law. Why would industry fund research in these areas as they have nothing to do with what they do? But just because these subjects don’t attract industry investment doesn’t mean they’re not important.
Does this mean that big business doesn’t have much regard for our graduates?
Business thinks that the people running the universities are a shower of muppets.
The debacle in cork university is a prime example, €140k on taxis, over 1 million on room hire in 2011.
These people have no business experience and cannot control spend.
It would be a waster of money.
John,
The fact the Ireland is not a centre of decision making for many of the firms operating here says more about what big business thinks.
John,
The fact the Ireland is not a centre of decision making for many of the firms operating here says more about what they think.
Only certain types of research are susceptible to industry bias eg: Climate change, and some Health research etc. These things do need unbiased funding but industry funding technology research into creating the next Samsung Galaxy phone has been good for Korea.
Meanwhile in Ireland we can only hope to get a few mid level jobs as a call centre for your phone bill.
We need to realise that not everyone can be a software engineer and that real home grown design & manufacturing can make a resilient economy. What will happen when India starts to produce more software engineers and they already have the factories to make the product? We’ll be the ones running the call centre…….
I agree with some of the comments that not all research should be industry focused not industry paid for…. HOWEVER, coming bottom of a list for raising industry funding for R&D is NOT a good sign nor something that should be applauded. A good balance between the two should be found as not all research can be publicly funded which we should remember is the only alternative to private funding!
You can see our research on http://www.EnergyElephant.com and we work with Universities to answer problems in the real world!
I think “research” is the key word here. Ireland seems unable to play the research game and this needs to be addressed first.
Is it lack of understanding of R&D or is it the lack of speed in the actual process of getting the R&D carried out?
While the quality of the graduates is not in question the productivity might be!
I don’t agree with your comment. Recently enough Ireland was placed on the top 5 list of countries to watch in the Nature journal which is one of the most prestigious journals in science. In my opinion we are punching well above our weight for the level of funding coming in. This article doesn’t address that there are two ways to ascertain funding, commercial and national/European grants. With commercial funding it can be very difficult to publish your work in a journal as it is held up by patents therefore government funding is the best way to get finance and freely publish your work.
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/item/33158-nature-journal-names-irelan
I accept that but Ireland could be doing more R&D other than the pharma and IT sectors.
R&D really is only profitable for industries such as pharma and biomedical sectors and these are the companies that can afford paying for graduates with PhDs and masters. These industries need to constantly invent and innovate as their patents have a 20 year life before they are released to public for other companies to create generic versions. I don’t know what you mean when you say R&D in other areas
It means big business is too clever to get involved in one of the most corrupt countries in the world
Oh, please. Hyperbole much?
Perhaps you should blame the EU for crowding out private-industry research funding. Except that Irish unis are no longer good at drawing down the billions available from “Brussels”.
So the real culprit must be Chuck Feeny sloshing money around the place…
Headlining “worst in the world” is surely alarmist and more than a mild overstatement considering the study only looked at 30 countries…
This survey dont surprise me one bit,the academic and socialist ethos was all fine and dandy for the last century,but nowadays and into the future, its hard headed realism that is needed most,and the top spot presence of South Korea and Singapore just confirms this, they could also include Israel, its one of the reasons we have always had high unimployment and emmigration here,as a country the lack of a local enterprise culture here is one if our biggest failings,the fact that we have to rely on FDI for nearly every job created is a glearing example of our failure to invest in educating people to provide their own employment,so that jobs are created in the local communities and are able to supply the goods and services that are now provided by foreign imports,socialist airy fairy certainly is no substitute.
I accept that John but I feel Ireland could be involved in other types of R&D away from Pharma and IT and this is the reason I am asking why?
have your say