“Less” Doesn’t Mean “None”

Cheaper prices hurt. And implementing a social cost to fast food meals might save for future expenditures, which becomes a hated idea among consumers. Meat dominates the fast food industry’s center of criticism. Beef in particular having large amounts of saturated fats and accompanied by two buns becomes the staple unhealthy food in most fast food restaurants. Critics’ natural approach would be to change to an alternative method after learning of meat production’s responsibility in the increased use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Alternatives aren’t easy to find because they can’t fix the inevitable. The alternative to meat that typically comes to mind is plant-based meat. Plant-based meat doesn’t resort to the feeding and killing of animals, saving the grain, water, gasoline, and other fuels used to create a pound of beef. Sadly this alternative leaves the largest polluter, the production of crops, still alive. And according to Joan Sabate and Sam Soret, authors of “Sustainability of Plant-Based Diets: Back to the Future”, the majority of nonrenewable resource usage in food production comes from the production of chemical fertilizers and pesticides used to raise crops. Yes, Sabate and Soret do commend that the grain used for raising livestock takes up many times more land than soybeans which are used for plant-based meat, but the large-scale production of plant-based meat would lead to the inevitable use of pesticides and fertilizers leaving the pollution argument standing. 

Plant-based meat having reduced methane and carbon emissions compared to regular meat production does not negate the fact that the pollution is there. Implementing a social cost would still help combat the use of pesticides and fertilizer in food production, plant-based or not. Other alternatives are far from large-scale use and aren’t feasible to implement when fending off the battle against the use of fossil fuels. 

Lab-grown meat for example cuts out the mass raising of livestock and crops reducing air and water pollution. However, Jaydee Hanson and Julia Ranney state that in the process of growing the cells to make the meat, the cells do have a chance of forming cancer-causing cells. Their article “Is Lab-Grown Meat Healthy and Safe to Consume” even goes as far as to say, “While these companies don’t disclose much to the public about their processing methods, their public patents reveal the creation of oncogenic, or cancer-causing, cells.”  Showing that there are concerns with the process of turning cells into a safe consumable product.

Plant-based food lies to its customers. “Can Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Be Part of a Healthy and Sustainable Diet,” helps ascertain the false hype for plant-based foods. The article agrees with the overall look for alternative food sources in concerns with human and environmental health. The authors’ disbelief in plant-based food’s hype led them to find a study discovering plant-based foods bring the same risks of increased caloric intake and weight gain. This 28-day study results comparing components between ultra-processed food and unprocessed foods lead to a conclusion that ultra-processed foods have more carbs, fats, saturated fats, sugars, and sodium, which become the stepping stone for obesity.

These results just reinforce the struggle to find a curing alternative to the astounding obesity rates across the globe. The article states,  “…the global burden of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases has been rising considerably. PBMAs may have some role in improving human and planetary health, but there is no evidence to suggest that they can substitute for healthy diets focused on minimally processed plant foods.” So considering alternative meat to justify a social cost is inefficient as the alternatives only meet certain stipulations and still leave behind future costs in the form of obesity or pollution. 

Plant-based food, while effective in reducing pesticide pollution, methane, and carbon emissions contributing to the argument of a beneficial social cost, does not provide a viable solution as it still negatively affects the economy as well as our health. 

Looking into the just production itself leaves the mass amounts of energy in transportation, packaging, and serving free to wreak havoc. Another driving force for implementing a social cost would be transported in the food industry. 

Transportation pollutes more than one thinks. Large trucks everywhere transport food and supplies to restaurants. Some states are dependent upon them since that state may lack in the processing and growing of food causing the pollutants coming from a tailpipe to run rampant. The transportation of food contributes to about one-fifth of the millions of carbon dioxide emissions caused by the food production industry.

Anyone trying to avoid paying for the pollution from these gas-run food trucks would look towards the famous electric cars. They are much more economically friendly as they don’t run on fossil fuels and execute the carbon footprint stamped on the car industry.

Electric cars come with their fair share of downsides. Electric cars seemingly appear eco-friendly in all aspects, but the batteries used to energize the car beg to differ. Lithium batteries or EV(electric vehicle) batteries are hazardous for good reason. Even the U.S. Department of Transportation states,

“Lithium cells and batteries can present both chemical (e.g., corrosive or flammable electrolytes) and electrical hazards. Unlike standard alkaline batteries, most lithium batteries manufactured today contain a flammable electrolyte and have an incredibly high energy density. They can overheat and ignite under certain conditions, such as a short circuit, physical damage, improper design, or assembly. Once ignited, lithium cell and battery fires can be difficult to extinguish.”

As much as electric cars want to stay electric, charging stations take power from grids running on fossil fuels. Though the majority of charging stations rely on clean sources of power, the fossil fuels powering twenty percent of electric car charging stations still contribute to the problem. Social cost implementation would still effectively help governments to redistribute into programs that benefit all.

A social cost on the consumer price at fast food restaurants could certainly reduce the cost itself but isn’t significant enough to cease the argument for a social cost. “Less” does not mean “none.” Without alternatives to cause no negative externalities in the environment or human health, a social cost still stands.

References

Hanson, Jaydee, and Julia Ranney. “Is Lab-Grown Meat Healthy and Safe to Consume?” Center for Food Safety, 20 Sept. 2020, https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/blog/6458/is-lab-grown-meat-healthy-and-safe-to-consume

Hu FB, Otis BO, McCarthy G. Can Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Be Part of a Healthy and Sustainable Diet? JAMA. 2019;322(16):1547–1548. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.13187

Joan Sabaté, Sam Soret, Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 100, Issue suppl_1, July 2014, Pages 476S–482S, https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.113.071522

“Transporting Lithium Batteries.” PHMSA, 16 Nov. 2022, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/lithiumbatteries. 

Weber, Christopher L., and H. Scott Matthews. “Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States.” Environmental Science & Technology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 16 Apr. 2008, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es702969f