While the initial reasoning is respectable, veganism is t without it's flaws, several plants are not ethically sourced and either cause a lot of pollution, destroy habitats to be grown, or are grown via slavery, or a combo of all 3. The real issue is the systems that are in place across the food industry, plant and animal based.
That being said, they still come out ahead in comparison to animal-based foods due to the fact that you need to grow massive amounts of feed crops to raise other creatures. It turns out that pretty much every environmental metric comes out ahead
Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits
[...]
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
In terms of workers, the meat industry is arguably worse on that front. It's one of the most dangerous industries anywhere for workers
US meat workers are already three times more likely to suffer serious injury than the average American worker, and pork and beef workers nearly seven times more likely to suffer repetitive strain injuries
[...]
Amputations happen on average twice a week, according to the data
And there's great risk of PTSD from the workers that you don't see for harvesting crops
There is evidence that slaughterhouse employment is associated with lower levels of psychological well-being. SHWs [slaughterhouse workers] have described suffering from trauma, intense shock, paranoia, anxiety, guilt and shame (Victor & Barnard, 2016), and stress (Kristensen, 1991). There was evidence of higher rates of depression (Emhan et al., 2012; Horton & Lipscomb, 2011; Hutz et al., 2013; Lander et al., 2016; Lipscomb et al., 2007), anxiety (Emhan et al., 2012; Hutz et al., 2013; Leibler et al., 2017), psychosis (Emhan et al., 2012), and feelings of lower self-worth at work (Baran et al., 2016). Of particular note was that the symptomatology appeared to vary by job role. Employees working directly with the animals (e.g., on the kill floor or handling the carcasses) were those who showed the highest prevalence rates of aggression, anxiety, and depression (Hutz et al., 2013; Richards et al., 2013). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15248380211030243
Not do be pedantic but wouldn't this imply you HAVE to grow feed for livestock? There's lots of regions where you don't feed your livestock but let them graze. It's part of the reason why 100% of those with Irish decent are able to digest lactose as it was crucial for survival for thousands of years.
I think overwhelmingly you have the correct position here however.
Grass-fed doesn't really scale and entails a number of other environmental issues from higher methane to higher deforestation. Even for Ireland in particular, it's got quite a number of issues
Increased methane emissions
Grass-fed production requires longer growing times leading to more lifetime methane emissions overall. It also requires more cattle overall due to lower slaughter weight
Taken together, an exclusively grass-fed beef cattle herd would raise the United States’ total methane emissions by approximately 8%.
Not enough land to meet demand even if 100% of grassland was used
We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates
[…]
If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.
Problems in countries that have tried to scale it up
New Zealand has tried to scale up it's grass-fed production and often touts it. To do so, they end up using heavy amounts of fertilizer in their production so much so that some regions need a 12-fold reduction in their dairy industry size just to have their water meet safety thresholds
The large footprint for milk in Canterbury indicates just how far the capacity of the environment has been overshot. To maintain that level of production and have healthy water would require either 12 times more rainfall in the region or a 12-fold reduction in cows. [...] The “grass-fed” marketing line overlooks the huge amounts of fossil-fuel-derived fertiliser used to make the extra grass that supports New Zealand’s very high animal stock rates.
Keep in mind that this is the case with New Zealand still using plenty of feed because their definition of grass-fed still allows for plenty of supplemental grain. A fully grass-fed system would fair even worse in that regard
The national dairy industry [in New Zealand] is consistently the country’s largest consumer of grain and feed at approximately 75 percent (Figure 4). The majority of dairy farms are on non-irrigated pasture-based systems (75 to 80 percent), where up to 25 percent of the annual diet could consist of supplemental feeding. With the recently high dairy prices experienced of over NZ$9.30 (US$6.05) in the last two years (Appendix 2), farmers have looked to maximize milk yields by utilizing more “purchased” feed for conversion to milk solids
In the UK and Ireland, the land that grass-fed cows are on is primarily actually not natural grass-land - its natural state is temperate rainforest
Most of the UK and Ireland’s grass-fed cows and sheep are on land that might otherwise be temperate rainforest – arable crops tend to prefer drier conditions. However, even if there were no livestock grazing in the rainforest zone – and these areas were threatened by other crops instead – livestock would still pose an indirect threat due to their huge land footprint [...] Furthermore, most British grass-fed cows are still fed crops on top of their staple grass
I feel like you want to argue about this but I really don't. I agree with you, I just have some criticisms for how you cherry pick feed crops and now cows to support your argument. Sheep could easily be eating just grass and have their wool used to insulate housing that could theoretically decrease the burning of sequestered carbon for heating/cooling. But that's not what is going on, it's not a popular use, and it's not really fair to you to cherry pick data like that.
The source looking at Ireland does talk about how sheep grazing in the UK and Ireland are primarily on temperate forestland. But more broadly, other ruminants like sheep are going to have similarly high methane emissions to cattle. Ruminants, unlike other farm animals, have most of their emission from eccentric fermentation (and or land use change/deforestation) which is going to occur at similar rates when they are eating grass as well. So should I have separated that out a bit, potentially yes, but my earlier comments were already getting quite long
From one study:
More than 80% of the emissions attributed to sheepmeat and wool result from on-farm methane emissions, due principally to enteric fermentation (Cottle et al., 2016, Peri et al., 2020, Vermulen et al., 2012). Other non-methane emissions and emissions that occur in the supply chain post farm gate are a relatively minor contributor to overall emissions (Australian Government, 2020, Vermulen et al., 2012).
In terms of land usage, the land usage is actually even higher for lamb and mutton production per kg and per kg protein compared to the already high usage for beef production [1] [2]. This entails wool production having high usage since sheep in wool production are typically killed for meat as well once their wool production decrease (similar to dairy).
When we compare wool emissions to other textiles, we find that wool has some of the highest emissions per kg of any textile [3]. We could just as easily be using cotton (lower emissions to produce per kg) which has similar insulation R values and lower emissions
Ah no worries, I have a tendency to just dump a lot into comments so it might be easy to miss some of the details. My infodumping tendencies have their cons sometimes :)
Not at all, I find it really refreshing to talk to someone who is willing to cite and give chunks of info in a concise manner. This was 100% on me and not your fault in any way.
Almonds are a big one that I know of. The vast majority of the world's almonds are grown in California, a state that has been facing severe drought for years now (though maybe not so much this year), but somehow still finds hundreds of billions of gallons of water yearly to keep almond farms irrigated.
And eating almonds is one thing, but processing them into milk is an order of magnitude more wasteful. It takes about 400 almonds to make a half gallon of almond milk, and each one of those almonds requires a gallon of water to produce. So that's 400 gallons of water spent to produce a half gallon of almond milk. A single almond tree can make about 30 gallons of almond milk per harvest, so we're looking at 24,000 gallons of water consumed per tree, which yields a full shelf of Almond Breeze at a single grocery store.
And as farms keep expanding and conditions become drier and drier over time, it's going to destroy the ecosystems of the state. And all so that people can have a decent milk alternative to have with their morning coffee and cereal.
The majority of California's water usage is going to beef and dairy. They are large producers of animal feed which are heavy water users. Per liter, dairy milk requires 628.2 L of freshwater vs almond milk requiring 371.46 L of freshwater. And if you use something like oat milk instead that gets you to 48.24 L
One graph even has California's animal feed water usage so large it actually goes off the chart at 15.2 million acre-feet of water (it is distorted to make it fit as it notes). For some comparison, the blue water usage of animal feed is larger than all of almonds water usage of ~2 million acre-feet of water
Correspondingly, our hydrologic modelling reveals that cattle-feed irrigation is the leading driver of flow depletion in one-third of all western US sub-watersheds; cattle- feed irrigation accounts for an average of 75% of all consumptive use in these 369 sub-watersheds. During drought years (that is, the driest 10% of years), more than one-quarter of all rivers in the western US are depleted by more than 75% during summer months (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig. 2) and cattle-feed irrigation is the largest water use in more than half of these heavily depleted rivers
I don't think anyone is arguing that, particularly when looking at how much devastation is done to the Amazon Rainforest all for the sake of livestock.
Just pointing out an example of how even food items that are vegan may also have a significant negative impact upon the environment (and as mentioned above, some also impact the rights of workers) that folks should take into consideration when deciding upon food choices. Even if something is technically vegan, it does not necessarily mean it is sustainable or ethical.
Personally, I prefer oat milk or rice milk over almond milk because those options have a significantly smaller footprint. If protecting the environment is a priority for someone who made the decision to be vegan, they might want to consider cutting out almonds (or at least almond milk), too.
There have been multiple people claiming the opposite on this very post. That is why I interpreted the original comment that way. The impression I see many people have is that almonds are the driver of water usage of the colorado river and they miss that dairy and beef are responsible for >50% alone
Are almonds great, no, but are they worse than dairy milk in terms of water usage as many people think, also no the opposite is true.
So... Tell me how vegan alternatives to items reduce carbon footprint lol.
Vegans in ideology make sense, but if you are paying more for food [that's worse for you, instead:] just buy local stuff from your farmers market or ethically-farmed things... Local eggs, cows, vegetables... Surely this can't be unreasonable.
The worst-case production of plant-based foods actually comes out ahead compared to best-case production on virtually every environmental metric including emissions.
If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
[…]
Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
Transportation doesn't actually make as much impact as one might think
Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%. Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions. This data shows that this is the case when we look at individual food products. But studies also shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets across the EU. Food transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%.
In terms of health, one can live perfectly fine and healthy on a plant-based diet
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease
I have one thing for you to research - as I do agree when it comes to naturally-created plant diets (but still with a requirement of some meat, pescatarians and vegetarians make more sense than vegans) - But you should instead look out for Seed-oils. Video
The seed oil thing in particular isn't really backed up by current research
June 22, 2022—While the internet may be full of posts stating that seed oils such as canola and soy are “toxic,” scientific evidence does not support these claims, according to experts. Guy Crosby, adjunct associate of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, was among those quoted in a May 31, 2022 Consumer Reports article who pushed back on the idea
If you are looking at plant-based meats as that video seems to be, there is some degree of evidence showing that it still comes out ahead health-wise compared to animal meat . That being said, aiming for more of a whole-foods plant-based diet is of course even better health-wise
That being said, aiming for more of a whole-foods plant-based diet is of course even better health-wise compared to animal meat.
Never mind, if I knew this conversation was unreasonable I wouldn't have started it. Imagine thinking that something manufactured in laboratories requiring to be tested by FDA for human consumption is "healthier" than something that already naturally occurs. Got it.
I'm a bit confused by that quoted bit since whole-food plant-based diets are an entirely separate concept from plant-based meats. Whole-foods plant-based diets ential using whole foods like beans, potatoes, lentisl, etc. in dishes
For the second half. Nearly everything is tested by the FDA. You can find plenty of naturally occurring things like citric acid from citric fruits having been given a GRAS referencing studies to determine how much may be too much.
Natural does not nessaraily mean healthy. For instance, Tobacco isn't exactly healthy despite it being naturally occurring and having been used for a long time
Are plant-based meats the healthiest things in the world, no, but are they worse than meat, the current evidence suggests they are likely better health wise in that comparison
yes! I was trying to remember where I saw that. I get the combative attitude from people sometimes 'cause I don't drink, which as I recall, he mentions in that video too.
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease
I was, and still am, surprised by how often people will go into a long rant justifying why they eat meat to me as soon as they find out I'm vegetarian. All the while I'm just sat there, not saying anything, because I literally do not care whether or not they eat meat.
Me being a vegetarian is a personal choice for me and myself only. You do you. I don't care. You don't need to explain yourself to me. It makes me feel so awkward.
People will often ask me why I'm a vegetarian too. But it feels like a very personal and heavy question to ask someone immediately after finding out they're vegetarian... I don't especially want to talk about animals dying all the time and how it makes me sad especially to strangers.
Edit/Addition: It feels like a lot of focus is brought on how vegetarians/vegans force their views onto other people but my experience personally is non-vegetarians/vegans trying to force me into conversations about this topic.
There are a lot of people who take it personally when confronted with the idea that someone else is making an ethical choice that they, themselves, are not. When they hear someone say "I made this personal choice," their ego warps it into "I made this personal choice and if you don't, you're a bad person."
It's simply low empathy behavior. They struggle to contextualize other people's thoughts and decisions outside of their own personal experience and beliefs.
Check out the "sodcasts" of Peter Ballerstedt on his YouTube channel. He's a forage agronomist with a lot of knowledge. You may not like his conclusions, but he gives you the data to check them out.
I looked on google scholar to see any of their papers. Most of what I could find doesn't seem to be exactly peer-reviewed articles nor are most really cited by any other papers. At that they are making rather bold claims with rather weak evidence
The key is to farm or graze using regenerative methods. Current factory farming methods are detrimental to the soil and the rest of the environemnt in many ways. Bear in mind, however, that the largest contributor to greenhouse gasses is the healthcare sector, and that's going to be a tough nut to crack.
In terms of emissions, healthcare is not a major source of emissions? The largest sector is energy followed by agriculture (of which animal agriculture is the majority). Most of healthcare emissions are from energy usage which is really a problem of renewable energy usage
Other people have answered more thoroughly, but it should be added that even your source never calls grass fed beef carbon neutral (on the very first paragraph it even says that it isn't), just that it has a better CO2 footprint than grain fed beef (and that not by much, as has been pointed out)
No, nor is its best case carbon neutral. See my sibling comment about that. It's also worth mentioning here that the typical grass-fed production is actually higher in methane emissions due to longer raising times
Taken together, an exclusively grass-fed beef cattle herd would raise the United States’ total methane emissions by approximately 8%.
Or if we look at Australia, which likes to tout its grass-fed production, it's still majority feedlot
51% of domestically consumed beef comes from feedlots. [...] In Q1 2021, 19% of cattle on feed were on feed for less than 100 days
And trend-wise, grain-fed rather than grass-fed is increasing
Going forward, these trends indicate that the Australian grainfed sector will continue to make up a growing percentage of cattle slaughter and beef production
It's not carbon neutral if you look at studies that account for more factors. For instance, here's an article with an interview of the researchers in the field talking about how there is no carbon-neutral beef
There’s not been a single study to say that we can have carbon-neutral beef
[...]
We also have to ask how much of the sequestered carbon in these systems is actually due to the cattle. What would happen to the land if it were simply left fallow?
If we look at much more rigorous reviews on the carbon sequestration potential of "regenerative grazing" it's pretty slim. It cannot even sequester enough to counteract just grazing only production which only produces 1g protein/person/day
Ruminants in grazing-only systems emit about 1.32 Gt [...] These are their emissions. The question is, could grazing ruminants also help sequester carbon in soils, and if so to what extent might this compensate? As the following numbers show, the answer is ‘not much’. Global (as opposed to regional or per hectare) assessments of the sequestration potential through grassland management are actually few and far between, but range from about 0.3-0.8 Gt CO 2/yr 301,302,303 with the higher end estimate assuming a strong level of ambition.
And keep in mind that this doesn't scale very well due to the massive land it requires. Already clearing land for pastures is a large deforester. Trying to even scale to a quarter of beef demand would require using 100% of grassland which would put enormous pressure for further deforestation
We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates
[…]
If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.
"And keep in mind that this doesn’t scale very well due to the massive land it requires. Already clearing land for pastures is a large deforester. Trying to even scale to a quarter of beef demand would require using 100% of grassland which would put enormous pressure for further deforestation."
Most deforestation is intended to produce land for crop farming. There is still a lot of agricultural land left that is ideal for grazing, and that cannot be used for growing crops. We may not be able to feed everyone in the world on meat, but we definitely can't do it with plant-based foods alone.
And apart from that issue, there is the matter of protein quality, which is complicated to assess. Most mentions of plant protein are referring to total nitrogen content ("crude protein"), but not all of that comes as amino acids, which is the only form in which nitrogen can be assimilated by the human body.
So mixing and balancing plant protein sources has to be done with a certain amount of skill and care, because if one of the essential amino acids in the mix is deficient, that limits the assimilability of the rest of them.
Extensive cattle ranching is the number one culprit of deforestation in virtually every Amazon country, and it accounts for 80% of current deforestation
The research suggests that it’s possible to feed everyone in the world a nutritious diet on existing croplands, but only if we saw a widespread shift towards plant-based diets.
[...]
If everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.
Complete proteins matter doesn't really matter all that much in practice. Things like soy are complete on their own, and things that are technically incomplete proteins like beans can be made complete with rather little like even rice. You don't need to be getting every amino acid in with every meal. If you eat the amino acids at some point in the day, you will be fine
Voting >>>> Personal energy usage [Using public transit instead of driving, Electric heating, efficient buildings, etc] >>>>>>>>>>>>> Non energy lifestyle choices.
Is just voting enough on its own, no, but giving up and not voting or voting for worse candidates can make us go from bad to terrible. Every fraction of a degree of warming matters here
yes, absolutely, but when both of the choices you're presented with are equally disastrous for the environment, there's nothing you can realistically do by just voting. The superstructure that stands in the way of real, actual change needs to be destroyed.
It matters much more than you might think. The emissions from the meat, dairy, etc. industry on their own are enough to make us miss climate targets.
To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
As a vegan myself, I completely agree! I won't tell others what to eat and they shouldn't tell me what to eat. If I were to ever get "preachy" it's purely about reducing impact on the factors mentioned in the meme and by no means forced... One less meal a week with meat in? Go you! Locally sourcing meat? Hell yeah, less environmental impact!
For the bit about local, it's worth noting here that the difference is substantially less than one might expect. Transport is a surprisingly small portion of emissions and environmental impact
Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.
Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions.
This data shows that this is the case when we look at individual food products. But studies also shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets across the EU. Food transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%
I always thought the party of sourcing from local wasn't transport but supporting your local economy and small producers, keeping the money within your city and raising buying power for its citizens.
Nobody is forcing veganism onto others lmao. You see a lot of vegans going around putting a gun to someone's head demanding they drop the eggs they're holding in the store? Most vegans won't even tell you they are vegan when it's not relevant because it's too exhausting when a person turns out to be a 'veganism bad lel' debate bro, so we'd rather avoid the chance.
You joke, but there have been cases of steakhouses and butcher shops having troubles with protestors. It's not an everyday thing, but we are talking about a small, crazy portion of an already fringe group.
.....that is a profoundly stupid way to look at it, you cannot exist without hurting something or someone, your mere existence causes pain to some people, and they'd much rather you stop existing, are you going to oblige them too? To define pain and suffering as unacceptable in all forms is to deny reality.
Nice ableism. No one is forcing you to support the rape and murder of sentient beings so you can put their corpses in your mouth. You can choose not to do it, don't pretend your hands are tied
No, we can't, we're omnivores, while you can survive on plant-based sources of protein, in the long term, it causes problems. Getting the right nutrients is difficult and expensive, even in the short-term, meaning that you have to be profoundly privileged to do it, so technically, you're classist.
And you didn't answer my question, what about all the other suffering you support? People who suffer so that you can be comfortable, everyone from the avocado farmers and factory workers to the bugs/animals that get poisoned by various pesticides? How is their pain ok, while the cows' pain is unacceptable? Do you understand that you can't exist without causing some pain and discomfort, somewhere to something?? The only reason you have a problem with eating meat is because that is right in front of you.
Not the original commenter, but wanted to add some rebuttal to a few of those claims
In terms of health
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease
Those end up being reduced due to the lesser need to grow crops. Is it perfect, no, but does it end up substantially ahead, yes
So for instance terms of pesticides, the usage still ends up lower due to a lesser need to grow feed crops
To produce 1 kg of protein from kidney beans required approximately eighteen times less land, ten times less water, nine times less fuel, twelve times less fertilizer and ten times less pesticide in comparison to producing 1 kg of protein from beef
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
There are people, whose whole job, and primary source of income is being vegan and talking about being vegan, and many of those people complain about the health problems they have, despite of all the effort they've put into it. So no.
In terms of issues with crop production
So murder of things is fine, then? You we'ren't complaining about the amount of meat people were eating , you were complaining that people eat meat at all.
And again, you didn't answer the most important part, what about the human pain and suffering your lifestyle causes?
Note again that I am not the commenter from earlier in this thread. I did not make any of those statements earlier. I am saying that while not 100% perfect, it is a dramatic reduction in environmental harm and suffering
In terms of health, an academic body that has looked at scientific literature is far more reliable than one's perception of influencers/YouTubers
In terms of human suffering, that is made worse by the meat industry as well. The meatpacking industry is one of the most dangerous injuries out there. From one Human Rights Watch report:
Together, poultry slaughtering and processing companies reported more severe injuries to the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) than many industries that are popularly recognized as hazardous, such as sawmills, industrial building construction, and oil and gas well drilling
That's not to mention mental toll that comes from killing day in and day out that you don't see with crop harvesting. Quotes from slaughterhouse workers are quite hard to read
Soon, though, I realised there was no point pretending that it was just another job
[...]
As I spent day after day in that large, windowless box, my chest felt increasingly heavy and a grey fog descended over me. At night, my mind would taunt me with nightmares, replaying some of the horrors I'd witnessed throughout the day.
There is evidence that slaughterhouse employment is associated with lower levels of psychological well-being. SHWs [slaughterhouse workers] have described suffering from trauma, intense shock, paranoia, anxiety, guilt and shame (Victor & Barnard, 2016), and stress (Kristensen, 1991). There was evidence of higher rates of depression (Emhan et al., 2012; Horton & Lipscomb, 2011; Hutz et al., 2013; Lander et al., 2016; Lipscomb et al., 2007), anxiety (Emhan et al., 2012; Hutz et al., 2013; Leibler et al., 2017), psychosis (Emhan et al., 2012), and feelings of lower self-worth at work (Baran et al., 2016). Of particular note was that the symptomatology appeared to vary by job role. Employees working directly with the animals (e.g., on the kill floor or handling the carcasses) were those who showed the highest prevalence rates of aggression, anxiety, and depression (Hutz et al., 2013; Richards et al., 2013).
I'm so glad you care so much about the suffering of bugs! Heartwarming. Maybe one day you'll actually care about the suffering of cows, pigs and chickens too.
You don't want to comment on the extremely well-sourced post above this one? Strange! BTW, if you're so worried about the welfare of avocado farmers, maybe you should also be worried about the welfare of slaughterhouse workers, many of whom develop PTSD from killing the animals needed for your le steak and bacon.
I acknowledge the suffering of bugs, the same way I acknowledge the suffering of animals, as the necessary thing that it is. I don't pretend one is more important then the other just because it's cute.
You don’t want to comment on the extremely well-sourced post above this one? Strange!
I did, people have gotten sick being vegan, people whose job it was to be vegan(vegan youtubers), so to sit there and pretend that it's healthy is a conversation ender.
I acknowledge the suffering of bugs, the same way I acknowledge the suffering of animals, as the necessary thing that it is. I don’t pretend one is more important then the other just because it’s cute.
Factory farming and animal agriculture in general are completely unnecessary animal suffering. They only exist because human want muh treats.
I did, people have gotten sick being vegan, people whose job it was to be vegan(vegan youtubers), so to sit there and pretend that it’s healthy is a conversation ender.
"Here's a scientific article saying that vegan diets are nutritionally adequate."
Factory farming and animal agriculture are completely unnecessary animal suffering. They only exist because human want muh treats.
Humans existing is completely unnecessary, what's your point? Necessity is in the eye of the beholder.
“But muh vegan Youtubers tho!”
They make their money doing the thing that the study says it's healthy, and get sick, they stop doing the thing that the study says is healthy, and get better. Sure, it's anecdotal, but there is clearly something the study didn't consider, these people have all the time and resources and access to nutritionists, if anyone could do it and not get sick, if it was as easy as the study claimed, they could do it. They literally have a profit motive to do so, and yet they couldn't do it.
The worst force a vegan ever deployed against me was… a disapproving face and some statement of disagreement. I guess some people can‘t take even the slightest disagreement in their life.
Even worse is the anti-vegan that will berate you for not eating meat, or that say they will purposefully eat twice as much meat just to counter your efforts... And yes, I have met a few of them, generally they blame vegans for their behaviour too 🙄
Very few will force it on others, though. Anyway, I find it hilarious how people can get riled up about the idea of a person not eating meat or any animal products. I’ve seen it often that they take it personally for some reason and will “compensate by eating extra bacon/steak/chicken”. It’s bonkers.
Eh, I don't care what you eat. But I find very offensive, naive, and just plain wrong the idea that it's impossible to sustainably raise animals for meat, eggs, dairy, etc as many vegans will try to insist.
Does it cost more? Yes. Can we raise as many as we do today using conventional farming techniques? No. Will/should we all cut back on our meat, dairy, etc? Yes. But, then again being more mindful of what we all eat is going to be required regardless, if we're going to manage to feed everyone.
Claiming that something is on its whole sustainable is rather loosely defined (i.e what level of impact is considered sustainable and on what metrics), so let's look a little closer. What many are saying there is that process is still going to inherently be much more inefficient compared to growing plants directly for human consumption
It turns out to be the case that the worst-case production of any plants-based production comes out ahead compared to best-case production of meat, dairy, etc. on virtually all environmental metrics
If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
[…]
Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
Livestock farmers often claim that their grazing systems “mimic nature”. If so, the mimicry is a crude caricature. A review of evidence from over 100 studies found that when livestock are removed from the land, the abundance and diversity of almost all groups of wild animals increases
If we compare more typical production rather than best to worst, the differences are even more apparent
To produce 1 kg of protein from kidney beans required approximately eighteen times less land, ten times less water, nine times less fuel, twelve times less fertilizer and ten times less pesticide in comparison to producing 1 kg of protein from beef
Because I see quite a lot of misinformation in this area, I created a doc of sources where I put relevant quotes as I look into things. It's now 28 pages. You'll probably see more walls of text from me on that front :)
People take it personally because deep down everyone knows it is wrong to keep something as cruel as the meat and dairy industry alive, plus the huge environmental impacts on multiple fronts. So they get super defensive instead of confronting or accepting the fact that they're doing the wrong thing for selfish reasons.
It's funny: the forum I help moderate has a strong contingent of zero-carb/carnivores, and their experience is the same, only in reverse. They get shamed for not eating plants. I guess the moral is that people will criticize us, no matter what we do.
Yeah when I was a vegetarian kid a decade and a bit ago I was relatively quiet about it because I got sick of meat-eaters throwing bacon at me or trying to "gotcha" me with the classic desert island meme.
Add comment