A Recent Study
A recent French study purports that eating a plant-based diet may have just as high of a negative impact on the environment as an animal-based one. The study analyzed the diets of about 2,000 people and compared the amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG’s) that were produced from the about 400 most commonly consumed foods. The study’s methodology attempted to measure the amount of GHG’s emitted from farming equipment, transportation, and methane (in the case of animal production) in relation to consumption patterns. The results of the study revealed that in relation to the amount of carbon dioxide released to produce 100 kilocalories of energy (a measure of energy in food that is necessary to power living organisms), there is little difference in GHG emission between eating animal-based and plant-based foods.
Of course, these findings on the surface appear to fly in the face of many other studies that have shown that eating a plant-based diet is much more environmentally friendly than consuming animal protein in any proportion.
So what should you believe?
Population Impacts on the Environment
When I conducted research for my graduate project in 2011 on the consumer, regional, and global aspects of the plant-based market, I found some interesting reports and studies that had been conducted that related to impacts on the environment. These were primarily used to support the contention that moving towards a global plant-based paradigm is the only choice we really have if we are going to create a sustainable food supply by 2050. That is the year, or thereabouts, that 10 to 15 billion people are projected to inhabit the planet. For that to happen, everything about the way we live and the food we eat will have to change.
Livestock Impact on the Environment
One of articles I read referred to the methane discharge of ruminants (livestock) that consume grains as being one of the main types of toxic contaminants to the air. They said that in 2009, 51% of all global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions already came from the farm animal sector, and they estimated that by 2050, these emissions may account for somewhere between 66.9% and 83.7%, according to one recent report (Deckers, 2010). Add to this that according to a United Nations report (fao.org), grazing occupies 26 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial surface, while feed crop production requires about a third of all arable land.
Do you begin to see a little bigger picture of how animal production affects the environment?
Reports that appeared in major news releases of the French study didn’t appear to mention these facts, which beg the question of how they arrived at their calories produced per amount of carbon released calculations. I’m seeing the possibility of some bias here, and I don’t think I’m alone. Granted, we are talking about metabolic process as opposed to just pure production in relation to GHG’s, which is kind of an apples vs oranges thing, but it still poses some serious questions.
Environmental Impact from Animal Production Runoff
Besides this, there is no mention of the other devastating effects of animal production, which are mostly non-existent with plant-based production, even and especially on a commercial scale. We can certainly talk about farm runoff, affecting soil and water table contamination, and how this gets into rivers and streams, adversely impacting food chains and ecosystems. The EPA says that runoff from factory farms pollutes our waterways more than all other industrial sources combined (peta.org). There is no mention, either, of how many illnesses and deaths have been tied to this toxic pollution caused by animal production. There have been a number of recent E. Coli outbreaks we have seen that have been linked to animal production, and in the past there have been even larger bacteriological incidents. One in Milwaukee in 1993 killed 100 and sickened as many as 400,000 people, and was thought to be linked to the runoff from a nearby dairy farm. There’s just no way around it, animal production runoff is is harmful to the environment.
Other Harmful Environmental Effects of Animal Production
Some of the other major factors that are harmful to the environment that seem to be overlooked by the French study are deforestation, and the resulting reduction in oxygen producing plants and trees, soil erosion, the destruction of delicate plant and animal habitat, and species endangerment. This is particularly true in the tropical rain forests of Latin America, which continue to be threatened by the increase in livestock production.
Finally, we can’t leave this subject without mentioning the fresh water availability. The United Nations 2006 report “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” stated that it takes about 2,400 gallons of water to produce just 1 pound of meat, while growing 1 pound of wheat requires just 25 gallons (peta.org). The report also said that raising livestock may account for as much as 45 percent of the global budget of water used in all food production.
It doesn’t take a huge leap in our thinking to understand that unless we begin to migrate away from animal production and consumption, we are going to be facing some serious water shortages in the future, most likely.
The Long and the Short of Eating an Environmentally Friendly Diet
So if you look at animal production from this much more comprehensive perspective, you can see the ramifications on the environment of continuing to base our consumption patterns more on animals than on plants. This is nearly a guaranteed superhighway to famine, disease, mortality, and perhaps even our extinction and that of every other creature as well.
You see, it’s not really just about how many calories you need to have energy to sustain life, as the thread of logic goes, if there is one in the French study, and as it may lead you to believe. I see this as more of a very clever red herring argument. The French study says to me, “You might as well just keep on eating meat, since you can’t use the environment as an excuse anymore.” “See, this proves it.” And everyone still caught up in the animal consumption way of life just rub their hands together deviously, and then fashion the results of one study, and maybe one with a few holes in it at that, into a flaming arrow to shoot at the plant-based army, who are the real defenders of the environment and of the planet. (Ok, so I’m being a bit zealous here, but you get the idea.)
Another obvious problem with the study is their assumption that a plant-based eater must consume a great deal more than an animal-based one; somehow they came up with a figure of 9 pounds of fruits and vegetables a day. Yeah, right (they really have to stretch it here to make their theory work). While there may be a few professional level athletes that could consume this much (although it’s doubtful), that’s just a preposterous number for the average person. It has been pointed out that the weight of food consumed in an average plant-based diet is probably no more than in an animal-based one, and may actually be less, unless you plan on eating nothing but lettuce from dawn until dusk.
Crunching all of this down to a bite-size chunk, my take is basically this: 1) don’t believe everything you read online, 2) question everything, including the results of research studies founded on possibly biased parameters, and 3) know that a plant-based diet is most likely better for you, for the environment, and for the planet.
Happy plant-based eating and environmentally conscious living!
