Averza 1

Sophia Averza

Professor Sinnes

PLCY 301

14 December 2021

Hamburger Meat: Its Real Cost

Imagine biting into a burger which consequently releases harmful gases while you eat it.

This picture seems unpleasant but paints a more direct portrayal to what happens when one

consumes a burger. A hamburger is a patty typically made from ground beef, sourced from cow

meat. Its composition is high in protein, fat, calories, phosphorous, potassium, and sodium

(“Health Encyclopedia”). The average American consumes more than triple the world average

meat consumption (Daniel et al.). Additionally, a typical American’s proportion of red meat

consumption to total meat consumption is 58% red meat constituting its largest meat intake

(Daniel et al.). Given that red meat is the most consumed meat products, one might hope that it

would not be too damaging to the environment. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The

consumption of hamburgers leads to bad environmental impacts throughout its entire lifecycle

and poses public health risks, which can be reduced if people alternate to more sustainable

substitutes.

Hamburger meat is fashioned from cows, who need basic animal needs like land to graze

and food to fatten them. Cattle typically are raised and fed for three years before being killed and

processed (Peters et al.). Since cows are longer lived than other common meats of consumption,

they tend to use more resources and graze the land longer. However, the growing and harvesting

the raw resources themselves may be impacting the environmental negatively.

 Averza 2

Farmland for cow livestock is not sustainable because it causes soil erosion from

overgrazing, high use of fertilizers, and unethical farming practices like deforestation. Grass is

only needed to graze during the warmer seasons or sometimes all year round for grass-fed cows

(Rasby). Farm animals confined to a particular area diminish plant cover on the land by walking

over the land to prevent new plant growth (Godfray et al.). This inability to regrow itself creates

soil erosion because the vegetative layer of soil is removed, and the continuous grazing prevents

regrowth. Also, soil erosion depletes biodiversity because it does not allow the ecosystem to be

resilient and promote new life (Godfray et al.). Additionally, farmers use fertilizers on the land

for the cattle. Although fertilizers promote plant growth and produce better yields for farmers,

they are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions (Desjardins et al.). Fertilizers release

greenhouse gases in their manufacturing, transport, and use (Desjardins et al.). Lastly, cattle need

more land than any other meat sources, occupying 35 million hectares of land, so some farmers

acquire land immorally (Wegier et al.). In 2018, it was estimated that around 71% of rainforest

land that was acquired and redeveloped in South America was for cattle farmland (Godfray et

al.). This conversion of grasslands to agricultural land occurs by farmers deforesting the land to

clear for grazing (Godfray et al.). So, most of the land in South America that was acquired for

the cattle was prepared by deforestation of the rainforest. In 2019, a meat producer that supplied

meat to companies such as Burger King and McDonald’s was convicted of pasturing cows on

land that was illegally deforested (Wasley et al.). There are pressures put on these farmers in

developing nations for higher meat yields for the escalating demand for meat which can result in

negligence and indifference to their farming practices (Godfray et al.).

To feed livestock, farmers require a plethora of maize grains which require fertilizers,

water, land, energy, machinery, and transportation to farms. Maize is a source of dry feed that is
 Averza 3

fed during harsher seasonal climates (Rasby). So, by growing and transporting maize for the

cattle feed for multiple seasons, many greenhouse gas emissions are released. To grow feed,

farmers must have a lot to grow plants, apply fertilizers to the soil, and water the grains. Like

grazing, there is a demand for farmers to find suitable land to grow crops, which results in

deforestation to accommodate their products (Godfray et al.). The fertilizers are applied to

promote high yield, but in turn release ammonia, carbon dioxide, and other harmful gases into

the environment (Ogino et al.). Water that is then used onto the fertilized land of the beef feed is

recorded to contribute to 98% of water consumption within the entire production of beef, when

cows’ drinking water and service water account for the other 2% (Godfray et al.). Also,

researchers found that about 1/3 of agriculture is budgeted to feeding livestock animals where

cows require the highest amount of feed (Godfray et al.). On average, a group of 1,200-pound

cows eat around 24 pounds a day excluding possible wasted food (Rasby). The grains produced

in animal feed could be redirected to manage the world’s food scarcity to give people food

directly rather than indirectly through meat consumption to maximize its use. There is a

considerable amount of maize that is allocated to animal consumption rather than for human

consumption which provide more vitamins and proteins when consumed directly (Wiedamenn et

al.). Not only do farmers need to grow the feed but harvest it as well. Harvesting feed requires

fossil fuels and electricity to power its machinery as well as its transportation which releases

greenhouse gases (Ogino et al.). Raw materials such as feed in beef production play a substantial

role in the unsustainability of creating hamburgers.

After using the inputs of land and feed, cows are then processed to be slaughtered using

energy and resource intensive processes to create non-renewable wastes. According to a study of

a meat processor in Australia, the key resources that meat plants used were freshwater,
 Averza 4

electricity, liquefied petroleum gas, diesel gas, gasoline, coal, fuel oil, and natural gas

(Wiedamenn et al.). These resources were used for sources of energy, cleaning processes, or

water utilization (Wiedamenn et al.). Of these materials, freshwater, natural gas, and electricity

held some of the highest units per metric ton in processing. It used around nine thousand liters of

drinkable water, over twelve hundred megajoules of natural gas, and over 300 kilowatts per hour

(Wiedamenn et al.). Resources such natural gas and coals not only are nonrenewable, but release

greenhouse gas emissions. Another source of greenhouse gas emissions in this process is water

usage operations and wastewater treatment (Desjardins et al.). Meat processing and its transport

from farm to slaughterhouse releases about 0.18 kg of carbon dioxide gases per kg of shrunken

live beef weight in its operations (Desjardins et al.). Not only does meat processing squander

natural resources but wastes beef residues in processing. In meat slaughter, prime cuts which

compose 60% of the cow’s live weight, hide, fat, and bones are sold (Desjardins et al.).

Unfortunately, 20% of the cow’s live weight cannot be used because its blood, guts, feet, and

weight from undigested food compose a lot of its heftiness (Desjardins et al.). Even in beef

production, there is waste that cannot be reused which encompasses 1/5 of the cow’s weight that

had to be fed and reaped no profit. Beef processing is inefficient because it requires a lot of

resources which release greenhouse gases which outweigh the productivity its manufacturing

since its meat and carcass are not fully utilized.

Following meat processing and slaughter, beef products are packaged in various

materials, including plastics and foam that release carbon emissions. Emissions are released in

packaging manufacturing because the production of granules of foam and plastics to create the

packaging material release a considerable amount because of its complexity (Ingrao et al.). From

using electricity, shredding production wastes for plastic granules, and forming plastic granules,
 Averza 5

emissions are discharged into the water, air, and land (Maga et al.). When being processed, the

granules require additives, specialized drying techniques, and production of absorption pads to

form the meat trays (Maga et al.). Additionally, packaging not only discharges emissions, but

also creates waste through its inability to preserve the meat. In a study of beef purchases in the

UK, researchers found that of tons of beef that were discarded, 30% of meat tossed was due to

expiration (Hutchings et al.). When accounting the total distribution of beef, it was estimated that

about 4% of beef products sold would be discarded solely based on it expiring before use

(Hutchings et al.). This meat packaging companies’ inability to preserve the food that was energy

intensive demonstrates their indifference to prevent further waste. Lastly, the packaging creates

waste because it has issues in recycling. The plastic films used in meat packaging are highly

energy intensive, so they require specialized techniques of recycling that allow their raw

materials to be reused (Barlow and Morgan). However, these ways of recycling require a

plethora of energy to break it down, so they are not commonly recycled (Barlow and Morgan).

Since these films are mostly not recycled, they are discarded and end up in landfills. In landfills,

they hardly deteriorate, since they require a lot of energy to break down when they are treated

(Barlow and Morgan). These films require a lot of energy to form yet after use they are

abandoned in landfills for the remainder of its lifetime if not recycled. Packaging for meat

products is unsustainable because it is composed of unnatural chemicals that release emissions

when produced, creates waste through allowing meat to expire, and being unrecyclable.

Beef has a negative impact on communities because they pose public health risks through

zoonotic disease and bad relationships among communities. Beef and its consumption have pose

health risks on communities because it spreads contagious diseases and causes humans to

develop chronic diseases. Cows and all animals act as a host to spread illness and bacteria to
 Averza 6

humans. These pathogens are attained through mostly through fecal-oral contamination such as

insects spreading their feces particles, contamination of water sources, and respiratory inhalation

(Hribar). Additionally, diseases from cows can not only be spread through the environment but

can be developed chronically. With ongoing and increased digestion of red meats, one can

develop heart disease, cancers, and diabetes (Godfray et al.). Studies show that those who eat

high intakes of meat for protein have a higher probability of cardiovascular death than

vegetarians (Walker et al.). As a result, a vegetarian has lower blood pressure because of less

sodium intake and lower cholesterol levels since meat has a plethora of fatty acids (Walker et

al.). Some cancers that are associated with high levels of red meat and processed meat

consumption are colorectal and stomach cancer (Godfray et al.). Cancers developed from red

meat have been estimated to kill 50,000 lives per year (Godfray et al.). Beef consumption can

lead to acute and chronic diseases to harm its consumers.

Not only does beef production create physical health risks, but also negatively affects

relationships between people as well. Beef production is an industry passed down through

succession from the time where white men were primarily given the privileges to make decisions

and own land (Gosnell et al.). Since the industry is inherited and learned through generation, the

industry lacks representation of women, people of color, and lower class (Gosnell et al.). Not

only does the cattle production create cold relations with these people to cattle ranchers, but

between famers and their mostly urban-dwelling consumers. Producers and their consumers

typically have polar upbringings, so farmers feel a lack of empathy from their consumers when

faced with crisis in production (Gosnell et al.). This creates unnecessary stresses on cattle

ranchers to produce beef timely and abundantly, even when environmental conditions do not
 Averza 7

permit it (Gosnell et al.). Beef production generates unnecessary tensions within communities

among all groups of people.

To prevent the waste of environmental resources and pollution, diseases on the

community issues, and dividing relationships, people should turn to sustainable alternatives for

hamburgers and beef. With vegetarian diets becoming more popular, there have been an increase

in vegetarian products with the appearance, texture, and taste of meat (Kumar et al.). Many

products that are labeled as vegetarian proteins are composed of soy protein, nuts, cereal grains,

legumes, vegetables like mushrooms, and mycoproteins (Kumar et al.). These products contain a

similar amount of protein to meat without its negative components such as cholesterol and fat

(Kumar et al.). These vegetarian products are seen in the form of burgers, sausages, chicken,

seafood, and others (Curtain and Grafenauer). In a study from 2019, the most popular meat

substitute was for burgers, totaling around 35% of all plant-based inventory (Kumar et al.). With

a large total of burger alternatives of many textures and flavors, it should not be difficult for

consumers to find a likeable substitute, especially at the cost of the environment and society.

Hamburgers, although seemingly harmless at the human scale, create a damaging impact

globally on land, resources, air, and human health. Beef production causes land degradation

through deforestation and soil erosion. Not only does it abuse the land, but uses an abundance of

resources including water, energy, gas, and fuel in producing feed, processing beef, and

producing its packaging. When extracting and using these resources, they pollute the

environment by releasing greenhouse gases. These greenhouse gases expedite global warming

and affect human health. Humans are already affected by consuming the meat itself by exposing

themselves to disease, but also face the environmental pollutants from meat production.
 Averza 8

However, one can seek sustainable meat alternatives to reduce the environment’s destruction

from hamburger production, consumption, and disposal to keep the Earth livable.
 Averza 9

Works Cited

Barlow, C. Y., and D. C. Morgan. “Polymer Film Packaging for Food: An Environmental As-

sessment.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 78, 2013, pp. 74–80., https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.07.003.

Curtain, Felicity, and Sara Grafenauer. “Plant-Based Meat Substitutes in the Flexitarian Age: An

Audit of Products on Supermarket Shelves.” Nutrients, vol. 11, no. 11, 2019, p. 2603.,

https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11112603.

Daniel, Carrie R, et al. “Trends in Meat Consumption in the USA.” Public Health Nutrition, vol.

14, no. 4, 2010, pp. 575–583., https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980010002077.

Desjardins, Raymond, et al. “Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle.” Sustainability, vol. 4, no. 12,

2012, pp. 3279–3301., https://doi.org/10.3390/su4123279.

Godfray, H. Charles, et al. “Meat Consumption, Health, and the Environment.” Science, vol.

361, no. 6399, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324.

Gosnell, Hannah, et al. “Taking Stock of Social Sustainability and the U.S. Beef Industry.” Sus-

tainability, vol. 13, no. 21, 2021, p. 11860., https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111860.

“Health Encyclopedia - Nutrition Facts.” University of Rochester Medical Center, https://

www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?contenttypeid=76&contentid=23569-

1.

Hribar, Carrie. “Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on

Communities.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention, 2010, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/59792.

Hutchings, Natasha, et al. “Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of a Biodegradable Multilayer Film

and a Conventional Multilayer Film for Fresh Meat Modified Atmosphere Packaging – and
 Averza 10

Effectively Accounting for Shelf-Life.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 327, 2021, p.

129423., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129423.

Ingrao, Carlo, et al. “Foamy Polystyrene Trays for Fresh-Meat Packaging: Life-Cycle Inventory

Data Collection and Environmental Impact Assessment.” Food Research International,

vol. 76, 2015, pp. 418–426., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.07.028.

Kumar, Pavan, et al. “Meat Analogues: Health Promising Sustainable Meat Substitutes.” Critical

Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 57, no. 5, 2016, pp. 923–932., https://doi.org/

10.1080/10408398.2014.939739.

Maga, Daniel, et al. “A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Meat Trays Made of Various

Packaging Materials.” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 19, 2019, p. 5324., https://doi.org/

10.3390/su11195324.

Ogino, Akifumi, et al. “Evaluating Environmental Impacts of the Japanese Beef Cow - Calf Sys-

tem by the Life Cycle Assessment Method.” Animal Science Journal, vol. 78, no. 4, 2007,

pp. 424–432., https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x.

Peters, Gregory M., et al. “Red Meat Production in Australia: Life Cycle Assessment and Com-

parison with Overseas Studies.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 44, no. 4,

2010, pp. 1327–1332., https://doi.org/10.1021/es901131e.

Rasby, Rick. “Determining How Much Forage a Beef Cow Consumes Each Day.” UNL Beef,

University of Nebraska, Apr. 2013, https://beef.unl.edu/cattleproduction/forageconsumed-

day.

Walker, Polly, et al. “Public Health Implications of Meat Production and Consumption.” Public

Health Nutrition, vol. 8, no. 4, 2005, pp. 348–356., https://doi.org/10.1079/phn2005727.

 Averza 11

Wasley, Andrew, et al. “Leading Burger Supplier Sourced from Amazon Farmer Using Defor-

ested Land.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 17 Sept. 2019, https://www.the-

guardian.com/environment/2019/sep/17/leading-burger-supplier-sourced-from-amazon-

farmer-guilty-of-deforestation.

Wegier, A., et al. “Beef or Grasshopper Hamburgers: The Ecological Implications of Choosing

One over the Other.” Basic and Applied Ecology, vol. 26, 2018, pp. 89–100., https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.09.004.

Wiedemann, Stephen, et al. “Environmental Impacts and Resource Use of Australian Beef and

Lamb Exported to the USA Determined Using Life Cycle Assessment.” Journal of

Cleaner Production, vol. 94, 1 May 2015, pp. 67–75., https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.jclepro.2015.01.073.