Which is worse for the environment: frying up some frozen onion rings or drinking coconut milk? eat a steak or a kiwi? Put lettuce or corn on the salad? Knowing in detail the impact of food consumption is often complicated. Although we know that veganism is a way to moderately reduce the carbon footprint of a diet, it’s not all black and white. Transportation, for example, contributes around 10% of total emissions from most foods, for beef it is typically less than 1%.
There are also differences if we compare them between those with more or fewer calories or more or less low levels of protein. To have a more precise view, the British media The Economist (famous for having created the Big Mac Index decades ago, which we already discussed in Magnet) has now just created the Banana Index. It is a measure to compare the climate impact of food according to three metrics (weight, calories and protein) and taking the banana as a point of referencea fruit of medium nutritional value.
You can consult its interactive graphs here.
As shown in the index, whose data comes from Our World in Data, minced meat or lean beef generates 100 times more emissions than a banana. And if we adjust for nutritional value, a calorie of mince causes 54 times more carbon emissions than a banana calorie. If we look, on the other hand, the protein, it would be seven times higher than that of the fruit.
The same goes for dark chocolate, which would be about 20 times worse for the environment than a banana based on weight, but only 5 times worse based on calories and protein. The largest variation between emissions by weight and calories is found in olive oil, which has a score of six when measured by kilogram, but a score of 0.7 when measured by calories. Others are the cerealscashews and Croissantswhich go from bad to good scores when measured by calories.
As we said before, the Banana Index does not take into account many important factors that determine the general impact that the food industry on the planet, such as transportation. And other threats, such as land and water use, are not taken into account either.
From the creators of the Big Mac Index
Nearly four decades ago, The Economist also created the Big Mac Index. In this case, the goal was to measure inflation and better understand purchasing power parity between countries. As? With something as iconic and western as a McDonald’s hamburger. The Big Macs they can be purchased in 70 countries around the world, but their price varies by region. And that is where this tool becomes important.
As announced at its launch, this index would work as a guide to know if the coins are at their “correct” level. Specifically, It is based on the theory of purchasing power parity (PPP)the idea that, in the long run, exchange rates would cause the prices of an identical basket of goods and services (in this case, a hamburger) to equalize in any two countries.
And thus analyze the inflationary evolution of the countries. Mainly because the price of a Big Mac, which has increased by almost 40% in 10 years, includes among other things the cost of labor, transportation, food and general inflation that exists in that country.
With those assumptions in play, Switzerland currently sits at the top of the index, with the world’s most expensive Big Mac, followed by Norway. Both countries have higher prices, but they also have a labor system with better wages than other countries. Another very illustrative example of the evolution of its hyperinflationary economy is given in Venezuela: it experiences the biggest jump in hamburger prices, with an increase in the cost of a Big Mac of almost 250% since 2004.
Graphics: The Economist
Image: Unsplash
In Magnet | Fake meat is not only more sustainable, it is also healthier than animal meat. Scientists prove it