Science Eating Too Much Protein Makes Pee a Problem Pollutant in the U.S. - Protein-packed diets add excess nitrogen to the environment through urine, rivaling pollution from agricultural fertilizers

Eating Too Much Protein Makes Pee a Problem Pollutant in the U.S.

Protein-packed diets add excess nitrogen to the environment through urine, rivaling pollution from agricultural fertilizers



In the U.S., people eat more protein than they need to. And though it might not be bad for human health, this excess does pose a problem for the country’s waterways. The nation’s wastewater is laden with the leftovers from protein digestion: nitrogen compounds that can feed toxic algal blooms and pollute the air and drinking water. This source of nitrogen pollution even rivals that from fertilizers washed off of fields growing food crops, new research suggests.

When we overconsume protein—whether it comes from lentils, supplements or steak—our body breaks the excess down into urea, a nitrogen-containing compound that exits the body via urine and ultimately ends up in sewage. Maya Almaraz, a biogeochemist at the University of California, Davis, and her colleagues wanted to see how much of this nitrogen is being flushed into the U.S. sewage system because of a protein-heavy diet. The researchers combined population data and previous work on how much excess protein the average American eats and found that the majority of nitrogen pollution present in wastewater—some 67 to 100 percent—is a by-product of what people consume. “We think a lot about sewage nitrogen. We know that’s an issue,” Almaraz says. “But I didn’t know how much of that is actually affected by the choices we’re making way upstream—when we go the grocery store, when we cook a meal and what we end up putting in our bodies.”

Once it enters the environment, the nitrogen in urea can trigger a spectrum of ecological impacts known as the “nitrogen cascade.” Under certain chemical conditions, and in the presence of particular microbes, urea can break down to form gases of oxidized nitrogen. These gases reach the atmosphere, where nitrous oxide (N2O) can contribute to warming via the greenhouse effect and nitrogen oxides (NOx) can cause acid rain. Other times, algae and cyanobacteria, photosynthetic bacteria also called blue-green algae, feed on urea directly. The nitrogen helps them grow much faster than they would normally, clogging vital water supplies with blooms that can produce toxins that are harmful to humans, other animals and plants. And when the algae eventually die, the problem is not over. Microorganisms that feast on dead algae use up oxygen in the water, leading to “dead zones,” where many aquatic species simply cannot survive, in rivers, lakes and oceans. Blooms from Puget Sound to Tampa, Fla., have caused large fish die-offs.

Although it is possible to treat algal blooms, many of the current methods—such as spraying clay particles or chemicals over the surface of a bloom to kill and sink the algae—are not always effective at eliminating all of the harmful growth. Some of these methods can even lead to additional pollution. So the best strategy for dealing with the effects of nitrogen pollution is prevention, says Patricia Glibert, an oceanographer at the University of Maryland, who was not involved with the new study.

One option for preventing nitrogen from getting into the environment is improving wastewater treatment plants. The technology exists to remove 90 percent of nitrogen from wastewater, but only 1 percent of all U.S. sewage is currently treated this way, partly because the technology is so expensive. Equipping plants in China to remove nitrogen from three quarters of the country’s urban sewage cost more than $20 billion. Almaraz and her team suggest, however, that curbing nitrogen pollution could be approached more quickly with a change in eating habits that could save billions of dollars in the long term.

Their new study, published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, broke down protein requirements by age (adults 50 to 70 years old need the most) for the current U.S. population and projected future populations out to 2055. By midcentury, the country’s population is expected to be larger overall and to have a greater percentage of older people. The researchers calculated the amount of nitrogen that would enter the environment if people ate today’s average American diet and if they instead reduced their protein intake to only what is nutritionally needed. This shift in diet alone could reduce the amount of nitrogen reaching aquatic ecosystems by 12 percent today and by nearly 30 percent in the future, according to the study’s results. Such a change could also help reduce damaging nitrogen pollution while wastewater infrastructure catches up.

“Many people think that we need to all switch to becoming vegetarians. Obviously, that’s not practical. That’s not something that is really ever going to happen,” Glibert says. Rather than cutting out any foods entirely, she suggests consumers could switch to a “demitarian” diet—an approach that focuses on reducing the consumption of meat and dairy, which currently make up about two thirds of the protein eaten in the U.S. “Enjoy your steak, enjoy your burger but go modest on your meat consumption in your following meal,” she says.

“One cool area that opens up here is how human behavior can influence our environment,” Almaraz says. “I think it can be really empowering to people to understand that, ‘hey, my choices—once those add up with other people making similar choices—can actually have a positive impact.’”


ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)​

Sasha Warren is a 2022 AAAS Mass Media Fellow at Scientific American. They are currently working on their PhD in planetary sciences at the University of Chicago. Follow them on Twitter@space_for_sasha

 
I don't see they/them in HER twitter bio. I do see a Ukranian flag emoji.
Here is the they/them.

"Alexandra (Sasha) Warren is a 3rd year Ph.D. candidate at the University of Chicago, studying planetary science. After completing their undergraduate degree in Geoscience at Durham University in the UK in 2018, they soon realized that the greatest challenges within the geological sciences are no longer on our own planet but out in our Solar System and beyond."

ETA: Twitter: https://twitter.com/space_for_sasha
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexandra-warren-901a96146/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/space_for_sasha/
 
Last edited:
I have a hard time believing Americans have a protein problem. The fatties outnumber the gym rats, and the fatties generally consume carbs, not proteins. Get fucked propagandist.
what do you think is with all those carbs? Meat, cheese, beans,milk, ice cream

anything turns to fat when you’re a sedentary mutt
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Red Sun
Warren_Alexandra.jpeg
 
I like how nitrogen is the new carbon. "Let's stop the nitrogen cycle to save the planet!"
I was about to say. Way too many fucking articles being written about the evil nitrogen and laws being made to "regulate nitrogen emissions"
Here's the problem, the nitrogen that gets released is a zero sum.
These moves are extremely unscientific. Cows don't fart out excess nitrogen, they simply fart out the amount they consumed. The plants they would consume would eventually die and release nitrogen anyhow.
When humans shit and pee we don't release more nitrogen than we consumed. 2+2 doesn't equal 5.
It is laughable that so much attention should be given to nitrogen, an element that is everywhere as the air we breath is about 78%, but no attention is supposed to be given to the artificial levels of estrogen being shit out into the water supply because of plastic garbage leeching into the water and people on medication shitting out estrogen.
Being worried about nitrogen is about as stupid as being worried about oxygen, or carbon dioxide... oh wait
 
"eat less meat, give up your cars, don't own anything, live inside cramped pods in the megacity"
Funny how so many of these progressive policy pushes seem to be almost deliberately demoralizing
that is the main goal, yes.
if you want a very tl;dr explanation on the motivations behind it you can read this
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Elim Garak
what do you think is with all those carbs? Meat, cheese, beans,milk, ice cream

anything turns to fat when you’re a sedentary mutt
Sugar and preservatives honestly. Sure there's some protein; but these people aren't fat off burgers or steak, they're fat off fast food and soda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak
Now do birth control pills.
That is implying that they actually care about the environment and not trying to push authoritarianism to fulfill their sociopathic desires on those they consider lesser than themselves.

Once they got bored of feeding us bugs, they would push for something even more humiliating or just down right starve us.
 
I've been dumping pee on some tree stumps in my garden to try and break them down faster. Glad to know I'm upsetting the Davosians while I'm at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: murph
Uh oh, too many people switching to keto and escaping addictive simple carbohydrates and the inevitable diabetes and heart disease they lead to. The WEF can't let down their pharmaceutical industry cronies that profit from all the organ damage caused by chronic hyperglycemia. Better scare people away from healthy diets. And there's the added benefit of ushering in their dream of a post-meat society. Maybe they should revive the low-fat pseudoscience.
 
How in all hells did Scientific American accept this kind of obviously agenda-driven bullshit in their platform?
They broke their 180 year tradition of not endorsing political candidates to endorse fucking Joe Biden of all people. They didn't even endorse Lincoln during the Civil War or FDR during WWII!

I canceled my subscription and never looked back. And I will say that SciAm has had some incredible articles in the past, it was one of my favorites alongside the Audobon magazine I get.

I would have done the same if they endorsed Trump or any other Republican, politics in science is unacceptable no matter what side wants to influence it.
 
Back