Are plant-based diets environmentally friendly?

Food ( 20 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

20 Comments

Login to comment

  • 4

    AKBfan

    Leaving aside the methane arising from additional flatulence

  • -3

    cleo

    A suspect study done by someone with a grant from the meat industry, methinks.

    People are not eating 4 kilos of fruit & veg to make up for not eating meat. The very idea is ridiculous. A healthy diet isn't all about calories; it's about getting all the nutrients you need while not getting all the surplus calories, fats, salts, sugar, additives, chemicals, etc., that you don't need. When I eat out, I don't see that my veggie plate is piled higher than my meat-eating companions because I 'have to eat more produce to get the amount of energy' they're getting from their beast-based meal.

    In the West at least, 'getting enough calories' is not the problem. Quite the opposite.

  • -1

    WilliB

    So what do they suggest people eat instead?

  • 0

    Thunderbird2

    Thanks to the horsemeat scandal in the UK I no longer eat red meat, so I will need to get the iron and other proteins from veggies. Might do me some good too ^_^

  • -2

    Pukey2

    A suspect study done by someone with a grant from the meat industry, methinks.

    Don't forget, this study was carried out in a country which is very very anti-vegetarian. I hear that it is actually ILLEGAL to serve vegan meals in French schools! I mean, WTF? You'd think there was poison in vegan food.

    People are not eating 4 kilos of fruit & veg to make up for not eating meat.

    Grasping at straws to try and justify one's claims, I'd say.

  • 0

    Xeno23

    All such studies are biased; it's inevitable. That doesn't mean the idea of a horizontal and vertical, end to end examination is a bad one. If we're really invested in understanding green technologies, we need to understand the whole picture. Take electric cars, for example; certainly reducing emissions is a good thing - no question about it. But where does the electricity come from? Gas, coal, nuclear - primarily. That doesn't mean the benefits are out-weighed, that just means take into account the full spectrum of effects.

    Nearly all the vegetarians I know get their produce from local, organic markets, and that's good, but as yet it's not scalable; the population of vegetarians is small, so it's sustainable, but not if the population rises. Most people get their non-meat foodstuff from supermarkets, which is primarily from industrialized agriculture - that creates huge amounts of pollution. So if we increase that reliance without examining the consequences we may just be substituting one bad thing for another.

    Do we need to reduce our consumption of meat? Yes; for a host of reasons. But if we're actually committed to also reducing our overall negative impact, we need to address the entire delivery chain of any given approach. Humans need protein, and thankfully vegetable protein is readily available, but we need more of it, and in a wider variety. I wouldn't be surprised if, in scaling the availability up, we wouldn't need to produce 4x+ the vegetable protein output. What will that do?

    Not that we shouldn't, but we have to think very clearly about what it means.

  • 0

    cleo

    I wouldn't be surprised if, in scaling the availability up, we wouldn't need to produce 4x+ the vegetable protein output.

    if the scaling up of veggie protein is accompanied by a scaling down of beast protein, overall availability would be up; it takes 9 kilos of veggie protein to produce one kilo of beast protein, so not producing so much meat immediately frees up way more protein in veggie form.

  • 1

    Serrano

    "The most greenhouse gases - 857 grams - was still emitted to produce 10kcal of meat, but only about three times the emissions for a comparable amount of energy from fruit and vegetables"

    Only about three times, eh? And yet producing fruit and vegetables is less environmentally friendly than producing meat, eh?

  • -2

    Frungy

    Pukey2Feb. 13, 2013 - 11:55PM JST Don't forget, this study was carried out in a country which is very very anti-vegetarian. I hear that it is actually ILLEGAL to serve vegan meals in French schools! I mean, WTF? You'd think there was poison in vegan food.

    A vegan diet is unsuitable for school children. Numerous studies support this. A balanced diet containing all of the major food groups is far better for children. Adults, who are past their growth spurts and the hormonal tumult of adolescence, can tolerate a vegan diet, but it is a strict no-no for children. Any parent who tries to make their child eat a vegan diet is guilty of child abuse. Plain and simple.

    cleoFeb. 13, 2013 - 05:56PM JST A suspect study done by someone with a grant from the meat industry, methinks.

    I do, however, agree that the study is biased.... but not the way you suggest. The study suggests that there is a plain line between vegetarians and carnivores, with carnivores only eating meat and veggies exclusively eating fruit and vegetables. Either diet would be unhealthy. I looked at my supper tonight, broccoli, carrots, green beans and two chicken legs. By uncooked weight the brocolli, carrots and green beans weighed more than two-thirds of the total weight of the meal, with the chicken weighing only about a third of the total weight. Since a vegetarian would need to consume more than double the quantity of vegetables to get a similarly nutritous meal my meal comes out lower in terms of carbon footprint. Yup, I'm better for the planet than some vegan... especially when you factor in that vegans tend to eat a lot of legumes and nuts, both of which are very high carbon footprint items, and tend to deplete the soil they're grown in quite quickly.

  • 0

    cleo

    a vegetarian would need to consume more than double the quantity of vegetables to get a similarly nutritous meal

    Not true. Unless you insist on the veggies being only the ones you mention.

    legumes and nuts, both of which are very high carbon footprint items, and tend to deplete the soil they're grown in quite quickly.

    Legumes improve the soil and make nitrogen available to the next crop grown.

    http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/sq_atn_6.pdf

  • 0

    Frungy

    cleoFeb. 14, 2013 - 10:36PM JST

    a vegetarian would need to consume more than double the quantity of vegetables to get a similarly nutritous meal Not true. Unless you insist on the veggies being only the ones you mention.

    ... you're joking me, right? It is a simple question of the amount of energy required to run the body (i.e. calories). Vegetables contain less calories than meat. 3 ounces of lean sirloin steak = 180 calories, 3 ounces of lettuce = 13 calories, 3 ounces of baked potato = 79 calories. I was being GENEROUS in assuming only double weight, in reality a very strict vegetarian, like a vegan, would need to eat about 5 times the weight of a balanced mixed meat and veg diet. Unless you're looking at a calorie negative diet, which is useful for dieting in the short-term, but is otherwise known as "starving to death" in the long-run.

    Legumes improve the soil and make nitrogen available to the next crop grown.

    Yes, they're nitrogen fixers... however they leech trace elements (zinc, manganese, molybidium, etc) form the soil very quickly and because they're fast crops and hyped for their nitrogen fixing qualities many farmers make them cash crops as part of their regular rotation, especially because vegetarians consume them in such large quantities... except that they were never intended as cash crops. You're supposed to plow them back into the field once they've grown, thereby re-enriching the soil. I know this because my grandfather was a farmer, and he never sold legumes from the same field more often than once every five years.

    One of the big problems that dieticians are just catching onto with the modern diet is the lack of trace minerals, which form a vital function in regulating the body's processes - you only need tiny amounts, but a lack of these elements can kill you. And so they're starting to test trace mineral levels now... and finding that the levels have dropped dramatically in the last three decades. The finger is being pointed firmly at legumes being used as cash crops.

  • -2

    cleo

    in reality a very strict vegetarian, like a vegan....

    Why does it always have to be vegan? What's wrong with a normal balanced vegetarian diet? Why can you only discuss extremes? I could point out that an all-meat diet concentrating on the nastier, fattier bits of beast raised on growth hormones and antibiotics is far from being healthy, but I won't because it's as far off the point as keep harping on about 'strict vegan diets' is. As a vegetarian for the past 20 years, I can tell you that I do not eat two or three times, and certainly not five times, more volume/weight than my meat-eating friends, neither do I want for calories. Far from it. If only.... It isn't all lettuce and broccoli, you know.

    he never sold legumes from the same field more often than once every five years.

    And that's sensible, crops are supposed to be rotated, it helps prevent problems such as build-up of pests & pathogens, etc., when the same crop is grown in the same soil repeatedly. I do it myself on my own little allotment, where there are no cash crops. Same thing applies to tomatoes, potatoes, corn, etc., etc., not just beans.

  • -1

    Frungy

    cleoFeb. 15, 2013 - 01:02AM JST Why does it always have to be vegan? What's wrong with a normal balanced vegetarian diet? Why can you only discuss extremes?

    Fair enough point, although I must admit I choose to discuss vegans mostly because they have the most clearly defined code. I have friends who call themselves "vegetarian"... but some eat eggs, some eat fish, some eat chicken, and some refuse all of the above and look offended and repeat, "but I'm vegetarian". Yes, I know there are special terms like "pescatarian" for those who are vegetarian but eat fish, but the terms are rarely used by "vegetarians", and it makes it very difficult to use the term in any discussion since it is so widely misused. It seems like everyone has their own personal definition of what constitutes "meat".

    Even the article above uses this confusing terminology. Instead of saying "red meat", they say "meat", and then go on to list "fish, pork, poultry and eggs" as if these weren't "meat".

    I can tell you that I do not eat two or three times, and certainly not five times, more volume/weight than my meat-eating friends, neither do I want for calories. Far from it. If only.... It isn't all lettuce and broccoli, you know.

    Indulge my curiosity then, what are you eating that is so high in calories? Corn is the only thing that comes close to meat in terms of calories, and it is loaded with unhealthy sugars. You could be making the calories up with olive oil, but again that's really unhealthy for obvious reasons. Nuts likewise are high in calories, but worse than meat for their environmental impact (plus being decidedly unhealthy in large doses). What I'm getting at is that a herbivorous diet can possibly be high in calories for the same volume of food... but in doing so is normally ridiculously unhealthy.

    I go vegetarian one day a week (sometimes more during summer, I find meat a bit heavy during summer), and I quickly learnt that while a tomato, lettuce, cashews and mozzarella salad with balsamic vinegar and olive oil dressing is strictly speaking "vegetarian", it isn't great for my health or my waistline, and the ingredients certainly aren't better for the envrionment than if I tossed a few slices of rare roast beef into the salad at ate half as much of the rest of the stuff.

  • 1

    cleo

    You could be making the calories up with olive oil

    I'm not 'making the calories up' with anything. What I'm saying is that lack of calories simply isn't an issue. Though if I ate nothing but salads, which is what you seem to think is the only alternative to raw dead beast, then I would agree with you that it is very low-cal.

    I don't eat a lot of any one food, or 'rely on' any one food in vast quantities for any aspect of my nutrition. Yes, I use olive oil, but not excessively; yes I eat corn, but not to the extent that 'dangerous sugars' would be a problem; ditto for brown rice, whole grains, nuts, fruit, cheese, etc. etc. Had a check-up just a couple of weeks ago, clean bill of health, so whatever I'm eating, it isn't harming me. And I'm not harming anything, or inadvertently eating horse or whatever.

  • 0

    Frungy

    cleoFeb. 15, 2013 - 08:59AM JST I'm not 'making the calories up' with anything. What I'm saying is that lack of calories simply isn't an issue. Though if I ate nothing but salads, which is what you seem to think is the only alternative to raw dead beast, then I would agree with you that it is very low-cal.

    I'm through trying to discuss this with you since you're just being rude now. i tried to have a civil discussion, but you're clearly incapable of having a civil discussion about vegetarianism. I did not suggest that salad was the only alternative to raw dead beast, in fact I specifically mentioned a number of other alternatives in my last post.

    I'd recommend that you reflect on your complete inability to hold a civil discussion on the issue of diet. Your inability to be civil about the issue shows a pattern similar to regilious fanatacism, and people who are fanatical about something are rarely in the right. If they were in the right they'd be able to acknowledge other viewpoints, defend their own logically, and then walk away.

  • 2

    lucabrasi

    @Frungy

    I don't understand why you say a lot of olive oil is "really unhealthy". It's known to lower LDL ("bad") cholesterol, blood pressure and blood sugar levels, and protect against heart disease. Where's the problem?

  • -3

    cleo

    Frungy, I am not being rude at all, just exasperated at your assumption that 'going vegetarian' means eating nothing but salads. I've met my share of bright sparks who, on hearing that I don't eat meat, make hilarious quips on the lines of 'Right, we'll all have half-pound steaks with chips, you can have a lettuce leaf'. Ha ha.

    If they were in the right they'd be able to acknowledge other viewpoints, defend their own logically

    You took the words right out of my mouth....

    Like you, I am done with this line of discussion. If you want to talk about vegetarianism, at least find out what it is first. It isn't all salads.

    lucabrasi - olive oil is a healthy alternative to animal fats. But it's still a fat, with just as many calories ounce-for-ounce. Substituting olive oil for other less healthy fats is obviously a good idea for all the reasons you mention, but like everything else, moderation is the key. I don't know where Frungy gets his 'really unhealthy' from, unless he heats his olive oil to smoke point (not a good idea.)

  • -2

    Frungy

    lucabrasiFeb. 15, 2013 - 09:32AM JST @Frungy I don't understand why you say a lot of olive oil is "really unhealthy". It's known to lower LDL ("bad") cholesterol, blood pressure and blood sugar levels, and protect against heart disease. Where's the problem?

    All things in moderation. Moderate consumption of olive oil does all those good things.Over-consumption of olive oil can: - Make you fat (it is high in calories and fat) - Unbalance your diet - High fat diets quickly satisfy the appetite reflex, resulting in you eating less of other things you need (dairy, grains, proteins, etc). - Cause non-alcoholic fatty liver disease - ... and of cause, cause mild diarrhea which is not pleasant.

    If you've ever been to Italy you'll notice that most foods served as "Italian" in restaurants bear little or no resemblence to how they're served in Italy. Very little olive oil is used, the foods are heavy on tomato and other vegetables (with no added sugar, instead they rely on the natural sugars in the food), heavy on the pasta and light on the meat. When I was in Italy I'd estimate that half the food on my plate was pasta (processed grains), about 45% vegetables, and only about 5% meat. And it was delicious. Meat was almost used as a garnish rather than as an ingredient. Oh, and lots and lots of fresh herbs... there were literally handfulls of fresh basil, thyme, rosemary, etc in every dish. Also a lot of very simple foods, for example a typical lunch on the farm where I was staying was fresh brown farm bread, a handful of olives, a small piece of cheese, and tomatos, with a few thin slices of salami, just enough to get a taste, but not enough to actually consider it more than garnish.

  • -1

    Pukey2

    frungy:

    A vegan diet is unsuitable for school children.

    That's strange. There are vegan kids out there in countries like the UK. I've never heard of them dropping dead or developing diseases or having problems.

    veggies exclusively eating fruit and vegetables.

    Which probably explains why you came up with the first sentence. You really do need to meet more vegetarians and vegans and ask them what they eat. Clue - it ain't just lettuce leaves, carrots and apples.

    but some eat eggs, some eat fish, some eat chicken, and some refuse all of the above and look offended and repeat, "but I'm vegetarian".

    I don't know about your friends, but I personally have never felt offended - I just politely tell them I'm vegetarian. The only people I've found to be offended is when I say I don't eat meat, and they get all uptight as if I'm forcing them to abstain from meat too. I don't give a hoot what they eat - I just hate it when people tell ME what I should or shouldn't eat.

    The finger is being pointed firmly at legumes being used as cash crops.

    And, according to Wikipedia, 98% of soyabean in USA is grown for livestock feed. But it's probably easier to blame vegetarians.

    cleo:

    Why does it always have to be vegan? What's wrong with a normal balanced vegetarian diet? Why can you only discuss extremes?

    I've been vegan for the past 15 years and feel better than ever. If veganism is extreme, I'd hate to hear your views on fruitariansim or raw-food diets. Producing eggs, butter and cheese can still involve factory farming. God knows what they put in the cows which give you your milk. And male chicks are gassed because they can't produce your eggs. I'm not trying to give a lecture, but I think you should take the blindfold off your other eye too.

  • 0

    25psot

    We are not going to loose the rock under feet but air above the head look like is becoming very serious problem.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in Food

View all

View all