Yeah, a vegan diet is much better for the planet...

[woodgeek]

A study from the UK dropped in a Nature journal last week.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w.pdf

It looks at an existing large UK health database, did extensive food surveys of the participants, and then puts them into buckets
1. High meat eater
2. Med meat eater
3. Low meat eater
4. Fish eater
5. Vegetarian
6. Vegan

Ad then computes how much environmental impact they each have in terms of global warming, land and water use, ocean dead zones, animal extinction, etc. Based upon their actual purchased and consumed food.

--The high meat eater category was over 100 g/day (all meats combined), which is close to the _average_ meat consumption in the US.

--The upshot is that vegan diet is only 25% of high meat eater global warming impact. The vegetarian diet is about 40% (bc of high dairy consumption).

--If one scores CH4 on a 20 year horizon (rather than the 100 year average), closer to its atmospheric lifetime, the vegan diet has about 16% of the climate impact, and the vegetarian is still about 35% of the high meat eater.

--Food production is responsible for ~34% of global warming forcing overall in 2015. Using 20 year lifetime CH4 metrics some estimate it is closer to 50%.

--The 2015 food production emission is 18 gigatonnes CO2e. All global transportation is about 7 Gtonnes CO2e. All cars globally are ~ 3 Gtonnes. IOW, global food production is 6X the CO2e emissions of all the worlds cars.

Transport CO2 emissions shares by type | Statista

Road vehicles, such as trucks and cars, were responsible for more than half of the carbon dioxide emissions produced by transportation worldwide in 2022.

www.statista.com

We can decarbonize electricity production and electrify all road transport, and if humans decide to eat some more beef than currently, it would offset the improvement!

 

[circusA]

For decades claims for a vegan diet have eventually been disproved. Not least of which is how healthy it is or how ecological. Animals can exploit resources that would otherwise go to waste. Any increase of CO2, no doubt, would come from producing more than what's naturally sustainable.

 

[woodgeek]

For decades claims for a vegan diet have eventually been disproved. Not least of which is how healthy it is or how ecological. Animals can exploit resources that would otherwise go to waste. Any increase of CO2, no doubt, would come from producing more than what's naturally sustainable.

Source?

Health: What about the Adventists? They are some of the most studied people on earth, and have various dietary habits that they stick to for life. As a group, they avoid processed junk foods. The vegan adventists live slightly longer than the vegetarian adventists, who live slightly longer than the fish-eating adventists, etc. And as a group, they are the some of the longest lived people on Earth, with the vegans living more than 10 years longer than the average American.

Other diets, such as the many low carb, keto or carnivore diets, are not new. They have been around in different forms for many decades. And yet there is no population of humans that have been living on them for life and showing good health. Lots of folks are having positive results for weight loss or improved health for a span of a few years, but no one has shown it to be sustainable or healthy much longer than that.

Ecology: In 10,000 BC, ruminants were a great way to get steady protein and calories. We passed the stage where our livestock could be sustained by natural grazing and plant growth in about 1950, and our herd now is 6X larger than then. The amount of food we can produce from the 'waste' of natural systems is negligible in this equation.

 

[EbS-P]

Haven’t had time to read closely. Trying to figure what category I’m in. Need to weigh my servings for a month.

 

[SpaceBus]

I get that the GHG emissions are lower for a vegan diet, but hunting for your food is even lower and more calorie dense. However I acknowledge that there's not enough game animals for everyone to hunt. Especially with all of the land use changes for growing crops. Obviously a there's a lot of room on the table to reduce emissions without drastically altering most eating habits by simply reducing the monumental amount of waste. Would we really need 6x the livestock with vastly less waste? There's probably a lot of room to convert agricultural land back to wilderness in such a scenario, which then increases the amount of food people can acquire without the GHG impacts of agriculture.

 

[woodgeek]

I get that the GHG emissions are lower for a vegan diet, but hunting for your food is even lower and more calorie dense. However I acknowledge that there's not enough game animals for everyone to hunt. Especially with all of the land use changes for growing crops. Obviously a there's a lot of room on the table to reduce emissions without drastically altering most eating habits by simply reducing the monumental amount of waste. Would we really need 6x the livestock with vastly less waste? There's probably a lot of room to convert agricultural land back to wilderness in such a scenario, which then increases the amount of food people can acquire without the GHG impacts of agriculture.

IIRC very careful food waste reduction could net 15-20% reduction in emissions, call it 5X in that scenario.
And yes, reducing meat consumption would allow rewilding large territories for carbon sequestration. Versus burning the Amazon rainforest (as now) to graze cattle and raise soy to feed cattle.

 

[SpaceBus]

IIRC very careful food waste reduction could net 15-20% reduction in emissions, call it 5X in that scenario.
And yes, reducing meat consumption would allow rewilding large territories for carbon sequestration. Versus burning the Amazon rainforest (as now) to graze cattle and raise soy to feed cattle.

I'm realizing that I'm at least in the medium range for meat. I would eat more fish if I had an easier way to get it, which is ironic since I live along a coastline covered in fishing villages. However, the main catch locally is lobster, so not exactly a staple, but it's gotten really cheap lately. I also feel strongly that there are essentially zero sustainable fisheries anywhere after reviewing some data last year. I have some fish in the freezer and cans that I caught myself combined with the catches of people that didn't want to eat their fish (lots of tourists). That was just luck, so I'm making that mackerel last. I'm also lucky enough to have the ability to hunt and raise my own meat without making land use changes. Nothing goes to waste around here either, all of our "food waste" goes to pets or livestock. There is some emissions from the grain and hay I feed my animals to supplement their pasture, but I'm working on minimizing that as well by growing animal feed gardens and encouraging native edible plants to grow in pasture.

 

[StoveInNH]

Good grief.
Grab me a steak.

 

[EbS-P]

The American diet will wreck the planet if it’s accepted by the emerging economies of Africa and Asia. The growth the world is about to experience in those regions will dwarf the growth of China.

What I want to see data on is how much of an impact eating locally sourced (2-300 mile radius)food has on emissions.

 

[SpaceBus]

The American diet will wreck the planet if it’s accepted by the emerging economies of Africa and Asia. The growth the world is about to experience in those regions will dwarf the growth of China.

What I want to see data on is how much of an impact eating locally sourced (2-300 mile radius)food has on emissions.

Here's some data from the guardian

The short versions is maybe there are less emissions, but not a huge amount less. Maybe there's a bit to he gained from eating local meat that was raised with local resources, but it seems to really be a wash. The real benefit is just keeping local farmers employed and keeping your money invested locally, assuming you are buying from a small independent farm.

 

[Ashful]

 

[EbS-P]

Here's some data from the guardian

The short versions is maybe there are less emissions, but not a huge amount less. Maybe there's a bit to he gained from eating local meat that was raised with local resources, but it seems to really be a wash. The real benefit is just keeping local farmers employed and keeping your money invested locally, assuming you are buying from a small independent farm.

Could be higher than was previously thought. I didn’t get through all of it. Could be as high at 30% if you figure food miles and land use changes.

Global food-miles account for nearly 20% of total food-systems emissions - Nature Food

The contribution of transportation to food systems’ total carbon footprint varies widely depending on calculation methods, indicating different priorities for climate change mitigation in the sector. Here, a global multi-region accounting framework that estimates food-miles and associated...

www.nature.com

 

[begreen]

Actually, it's cows belching methane that is the issue. There are solutions including adding biochar (activated charcoal) to the diet.

Study shows potential for reduced methane from cows

An international team of scientists has shown it is possible to breed cattle to reduce their methane emissions. The researchers showed that the genetics of an individual cow strongly influenced the make-up of the microorganisms in its rumen (the first stomach in the digestive system of ruminant...

www.eurekalert.org

And lo and behold, they have bred a cow that doesn't do this as much.

The climate-friendly cows bred to belch less methane

A Canadian dairy farmer's calves will be among the first to be bred with a specific environmental goal: burping less methane.

www.reuters.com

 

[sloeffle]

I found this article interesting about plant based meat.

Plant-based meat was supposed to change the world—what happened?

A few years ago, Impossible and Beyond burgers were all the rage. Now, the industry may have to reinvent itself.

www.popsci.com

When I looked into one of the meatless burgers a few years ago it had more sodium, and about as much cholesterol as a animal based burger, and cost three times as much. Outside of the animal welfare ( buy from your local farmer who treats their animals with respect ) & methane issue, I'm not sure what plant based meats really buys us ? Eating more GMO soybeans and corn.

 

[Ashful]

Actually, it's cows belching methane that is the issue. There are solutions including adding biochar (activated charcoal) to the diet.

Study shows potential for reduced methane from cows

An international team of scientists has shown it is possible to breed cattle to reduce their methane emissions. The researchers showed that the genetics of an individual cow strongly influenced the make-up of the microorganisms in its rumen (the first stomach in the digestive system of ruminant...

www.eurekalert.org

And lo and behold, they have bred a cow that doesn't do this as much.

The climate-friendly cows bred to belch less methane

A Canadian dairy farmer's calves will be among the first to be bred with a specific environmental goal: burping less methane.

www.reuters.com

Yeah, I was just trying to interject a little humor.

 

[begreen]

Yeah, I was just trying to interject a little humor.

It would help if humans didn't give them lessons.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[SpaceBus]

To me there is a serious ethical dilemma to raising livestock. The methods which give the best welfare are often the most carbon intensive. Then you add in the number of livestock animals compared to wild animals. Do we give livestock animals a lower quality of life so that wild animals can experience better welfare? Is one meat chicken life worth more than an animal facing habitat loss due to human activity (or any animal for that matter)?

It does really seem that the most ethical solution is to not eat any animals, but that doesn't sit well with me. My solution has been to raise my own animals with a low "carbon footprint" with high levels of welfare and hunt. Certainty not feasible for everyone.

 

[woodgeek]

I found this article interesting about plant based meat.

Plant-based meat was supposed to change the world—what happened?

A few years ago, Impossible and Beyond burgers were all the rage. Now, the industry may have to reinvent itself.

www.popsci.com

When I looked into one of the meatless burgers a few years ago it had more sodium, and about as much cholesterol as a animal based burger, and cost three times as much. Outside of the animal welfare ( buy from your local farmer who treats their animals with respect ) & methane issue, I'm not sure what plant based meats really buys us ? Eating more GMO soybeans and corn.

Not sure where you are finding plant based burgers with cholesterol. Perhaps you mean saturated fat? Also, I think the fake meats are often based on peas, which like soy are a complete protein.

No one thinks that plant based burgers are really healthy (being high in sat fat and sodium. Impossible has heme iron too).

Some studies have shown that swapping animal for plant protein, and animal for plant sat fat is a net positive for health.

 

[woodgeek]

To me there is a serious ethical dilemma to raising livestock. The methods which give the best welfare are often the most carbon intensive. Then you add in the number of livestock animals compared to wild animals. Do we give livestock animals a lower quality of life so that wild animals can experience better welfare? Is one meat chicken life worth more than an animal facing habitat loss due to human activity (or any animal for that matter)?

It does really seem that the most ethical solution is to not eat any animals, but that doesn't sit well with me. My solution has been to raise my own animals with a low "carbon footprint" with high levels of welfare and hunt. Certainty not feasible for everyone.

It is a dilemma. I liked eating meat (and eggs and dairy) as much as the next person. But for me reading the science about health was the straw that broke the camel's back. Why am I doing this thing that has environmental impacts and ethical issues, only to make myself _less_ healthy?

I think a lot of folks are walking around convinced (correctly) that they need to eat animal products to be healthy. I think much of the blame for that is folks eating a poorly planned vegan diet, and having bad results and giving it up. I know several people like that. And then a lot of vegan boosters are saying 'you don't need to worry about protein', which IMO is incorrect, and seems implausible to people.

In reality, a lot of folks will need to make an effort to get enough protein on a vegan diet, and will feel terrible if they don't, after a few months.

Fake meats help with the protein problem AND with the missing meat problem. And in moderation they are healthy enough.

-----------------------

A possible analogy... are fossil fuels bad (bc they are bad for the climate), or are they good (bc they fueled the rise of civilization and wealth)?

The answer is BOTH and neither. Fossil fuels are chemicals. In the past they were a great GOOD. In the present they are a BAD.

Is meat eating good or bad? Historically it was very good. In the present, perhaps it is bad?

 

[sloeffle]

Not sure where you are finding plant based burgers with cholesterol. Perhaps you mean saturated fat? Also, I think the fake meats are often based on peas, which like soy are a complete protein.

Yes, saturated fat. Saturated fat is associated with bad cholesterol ( LDL ).

Mayo Clinic Minute: Are meatless burgers healthy? - Mayo Clinic News Network

Plant-based burgers have soared in popularity over the past couple of years. Are these meat alternatives healthier for you than the real thing? Introducing more plant-based foods in your diet is a good thing, says Katherine Zertasky, a Mayo Clinic registered dietitian nutritionist, but pay...

newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org

 

[SpaceBus]

I'm ok with a few less years of my life for enjoying meat a few times a week, but the ethical argument does weigh on me as I wolf down local organic chicken during my lunch break, before I go back to work processing said chicken 😂🍗

It is clear to me that beef needs to go. I'll probably only eat old organic dairy cows (from the place I work) moving forward, because I'm not giving up cheese either!

Maybe someday we can get the food waste under control so we can give 30% of agricultural land back to the wildlife. Then we can pay farmers to manage natural wildlife preserves instead of earth destroying beef farms. I would certainly trade beef for more wildlife, especially if I can eat that too!

 

[Macandmall]

I'll stay with my carnivore diet. I can't imagine eating vegetables or grain ever again. The gas, bloating IBS it caused me is gone, Drinking fruit and vegetable smoothies and eating raw carrots, whole wheat bread, gave me immense foul smelling gas and unpredictable bm's. Eating just meat has eliminated that. My body is telling me it loves this way of eating by absorbing over half of the meat I eat. poop doesn't even smell, seriously, and almost no gas. Plenty of non vegan biased studies out there showing those global warming effects from meat production are way off, especially regenerative farms that actually sequester more co2 than they generate. Just remember that whether or not an animal eats a plant, that plant will decompose and create co2. How much global warming have the Canada wildfires created?

 

[SpaceBus]

Show me evidence of a farm that can sequester more carbon than it uses/emits. I looked forever to find this for some college courses but could not find good evidence. It's 100% impossible for beef just because of the way they digest food. Furthermore the issue with beef is actually methane, not carbon. Ruminants of any kind will emit lots of methane from digestion, some more than others. Plus we are taking biomass off of the farm, so that carbon is not being sequestered at all. Trust me, I want to believe, but I haven't found anything trustworthy.

You lower digestive system issues with fruits and veg is due to too much sugar. Smoothies are not healthy in any sense of the word. You are mostly just drinking sugar, which is where your gas comes from. Take some beano and GasX and try eating minimal fruit and grain with lots of cruciferous veggies. Carrots and potatoes are also not healthy as they are just carb storage for the plant and end up being a lot of carbs when you eat them. Beans/legumes and nuts are your friend if you want to have easy to digest vegetarian (not meat) food.

 

[Macandmall]

Check out Will Harris, White Oak Pastures for regenerative farming and carbon sequestering. You can eat whatever you want, I'd like to eat what I want. It's sad to see the vegan movement trying to convert the world to follow their ideology with studies they fund. The problem with studies is whoever funds them gets to decide if it will be published or not, and there is influence steering the outcomes. If the outcome is not what the funder wanted, the study is buried. They only publish the ones they like and data can be interpreted with a bias. I will not go back to eating nuts or beans either. Nasty plant sterols, lectins, oxalates, you can have them. I no longer have back or joint pain like I did when I ate plants and grains and nuts. After suffering with back pain since my late 20's, I now wake up and sit straight up in bed with no pain. I am 58, and can cut wood for 5 hours straight without having to stop to eat a granola bar or trail mix. My muscle tone, strength, and mass is increasing since eating only meat.

 

[SpaceBus]

Check out Will Harris, White Oak Pastures for regenerative farming and carbon sequestering. You can eat whatever you want, I'd like to eat what I want. It's sad to see the vegan movement trying to convert the world to follow their ideology with studies they fund. The problem with studies is whoever funds them gets to decide if it will be published or not, and there is influence steering the outcomes. If the outcome is not what the funder wanted, the study is buried. They only publish the ones they like and data can be interpreted with a bias. I will not go back to eating nuts or beans either. Nasty plant sterols, lectins, oxalates, you can have them. I no longer have back or joint pain like I did when I ate plants and grains and nuts. After suffering with back pain since my late 20's, I now wake up and sit straight up in bed with no pain. I am 58, and can cut wood for 5 hours straight without having to stop to eat a granola bar or trail mix. My muscle tone, strength, and mass is increasing since eating only meat.

Sure, eat whatever you want. I eat meat, just not exclusively. Your gut symbiont must be hurting pretty bad without any digestible food, but whatever works I suppose. You're the first person I've encountered that can't eat nuts. It's possible that you are not representative of the majority of people and their digestive system.

As far as the study, I think it is flawed, but maybe it's accurate. I didn't see anything about how the methane emissions are being reduced, which is the main issue with cattle/ruminants. There's also a limit to how much carbon the soil can sequester and the study doesn't say much about the emissions associated with land use change. Pasture will never store the same amount of carbon as wild grassland or forest, which also have limits to their sequestration