-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New Research Says Vegetarian Diets Could Actually Be Worse for the Planet
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
- Status
HazySaiyan
Banned
What about things like meat substitutes? And how many vegetarians are living solely off fruits and vegetables?
Skellig Gra
Member
Lettuce isn't a great example as it is basically neutral in nutritional value. In the end I think what is worse for the planet is the billions of extra humans that throw the ecosystem out of whack.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Vegans are destroying the planet!!!!111! *tears into medium rare steak* SAVE THE PLANET, EAT A COW!!!!
Before this thread goes sour, can we all agree that there are far less pushy/elitist vegans and vegetarians than there are omnivores who love to make fun of them?
As for the study itself, that's interesting. I think we're going to have to make a lot of concessions over the coming decades about what crops are actually worth farming considering ever-limited resources.
As for the study itself, that's interesting. I think we're going to have to make a lot of concessions over the coming decades about what crops are actually worth farming considering ever-limited resources.
I don't think we could agree with that-no.
Skellig Gra
Member
Are we talking per capita or just straight volume numbers?
Well, that's always been the issue. We could get away with a lot more polluting and a lot more meat if we had half the population. Lettuce certainly isn't what you should be filling your diet with if you're serious about eating healthy on a reduced or no-animal product diet, but it's probably a fair comparison given how much of it people eat and how it's thought of as this healthy food.
The OP article surprised me at first (I though it was going to be stupid bait) but it makes a lot of sense. Smaller animals have a much smaller footprint raised for slaughter than the cows we think of, and there are some obvious issues with mass-producing any food. Take almonds—people love their almond milk, and the high prices because of the drought in California... have even more people producing almonds.
That...actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Most nutrient-dense vegetables aren't energy dense. I'm not vegetarian, but I'd assume a decent amount of caloric needs are met through lentils and tree nuts. Not sure on the numbers for say, soy, but tree nuts need a ton of water to thrive alone.
Lettuce is a terrible example, but cause it's nothing but roughage.
Lettuce is a terrible example, but cause it's nothing but roughage.
In my experience, yes I can agree with you. I don't know about the rest, I guess it depends of the type of people you know.
Well that's certainly been my experience. I have tons of vegan/vegetarian friends and coworkers, and the common thread between them is that they take a lot of care in not making waves about others having a different diet. What I see way more often is people giving them shit about not "being a real man and eating a big ol' slab of meat hur hur." And I eat meat, so I don't think I'm particularly sensitive to this.
I'd say pure volume, though I'd love to see per capita numbers haha.
deltatheta
Member
So vegetables that have hardly any calories contribute more emissions per calorie than extremely calorie dense red meat?
I guess it's not surprising, but it seems cherry picked because I don't think there are a lot of vegans sourcing most of their calories from celery. Yeah 10 lbs of celery is more damaging to produce than one strip of bacon, but people aren't eating 10 lbs of celery in a sitting.
I guess it's not surprising, but it seems cherry picked because I don't think there are a lot of vegans sourcing most of their calories from celery. Yeah 10 lbs of celery is more damaging to produce than one strip of bacon, but people aren't eating 10 lbs of celery in a sitting.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Aren't eggplant/iceberg lettuce already shit-tier veg in terms of the ratio of grams/nutrients/calories?
Would be nice to see an emissions breakdown of 'better' greens and veg, but I can't find a link to the study.
Would be nice to see an emissions breakdown of 'better' greens and veg, but I can't find a link to the study.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Circle of life.
Here's a link to the published study-but you have to buy it:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-015-9577-y
Here's Carnegie Mellon's page on it:
https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/december/diet-and-environment.html
How lucky OP that vegetarianism does not equal to eating the calorie equivalent of 20dkg beef in lettuces.
Consuming the most calorie dense foods is a staple in vegetarian diet, and one of the downfalls of it if one is careless: stuff like almonds, hazelnuts, peanuts are INSANELY dense, much more than meat. I am talking about 600kcal/100g, or going even higher, straight into 650-680kcal/100g.
Is there a problem with the average vegetarian diet? Sure, I can be convinced that. But one cant just equate being a vegetarian with eating leafy greens all day, which are indeed ridicolously low calorie - almost to the point of being basically fillers for fibre and tons of K-vitamin.
Oh yes. I can still remember vividly how in the Lion King, the animals were kept in cage, poked and tortured for months before being slaughtered by a machine. Oh wait...
Consuming the most calorie dense foods is a staple in vegetarian diet, and one of the downfalls of it if one is careless: stuff like almonds, hazelnuts, peanuts are INSANELY dense, much more than meat. I am talking about 600kcal/100g, or going even higher, straight into 650-680kcal/100g.
Is there a problem with the average vegetarian diet? Sure, I can be convinced that. But one cant just equate being a vegetarian with eating leafy greens all day, which are indeed ridicolously low calorie - almost to the point of being basically fillers for fibre and tons of K-vitamin.
Oh yes. I can still remember vividly how in the Lion King, the animals were kept in cage, poked and tortured for months before being slaughtered by a machine. Oh wait...
Arthr2ShdsJcksn
Banned
Which is not a problem at all. It's fairly carbon neutral to slaughter an animal, so if I can eat animals while saving the environment, then it's an all meat diet for me, unless I need the fiber.
More Fun To Compute
Member
Don't eat lettuce then. What sort of diet has lettuce as the main source of nutrition that isn't some crazy fad diet.
DrGonzo615
Banned
So basically everything you see,do,touch,eat and smell will give you cancer and destroy the planet.
I'm making the point that most vegetarians are so because of moral views.
This pretty much sums it up.
Wildly misleading spin on the study...
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/vegetarian-bad-for-environment-debunked_567072d7e4b0e292150f95a4
Love how someone misinterprets/spins a study and then incompetent "news sites" jump on the story like it was... Well like something...
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/vegetarian-bad-for-environment-debunked_567072d7e4b0e292150f95a4
Love how someone misinterprets/spins a study and then incompetent "news sites" jump on the story like it was... Well like something...
A lot of it depends on chemical receptors for proteins both in meats, and for chemicals released by digestive bacteria as byproducts of breaking down the contents of your stomach.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Animal slaughter doesn't necessarily mean torture. Places that are torturing animals should be investigated, fined, shut down, and employees complicit arrested/convicted, yes. Total agreement there. So....
And not sure the source of torture really matters whether it's by machine or not. As long as it's quick. If machines do it better, which I imagine they do, then so be it.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Tons of animals die to bring you your veggies though, unless they're being harvested by hand.
Yeah, but I'm cool with that.
FrenchToastDisciple
Member
I mean, it's not like vegetarians are eating ten pounds of spinach a day to satiate themselves. There are more calorie dense plants to eat, so, although the point of this article is well taken (a vegetarian diet is not inherently less polluting), there's probably a lot of variation here by individual vegetarian diet. I'm not convinced yet that a well-informed vegetarian diet can't reduce your carbon emissions overall.
Spider from Mars
tap that thorax
I hope you aren't cool with factory farming. Eat meat if you want, but being cool with that is disheartening.
radios shipping overview
Member
I see veganism as being akin to a religious food restriction. And that's fine.
I'm losing my taste for red meat (especially beef), and gaining more of a taste for veggies. Now, just throw in some of that cruelty-free free-range chicken, and I've got a clear conscience and a satisfied appetite.
I'm losing my taste for red meat (especially beef), and gaining more of a taste for veggies. Now, just throw in some of that cruelty-free free-range chicken, and I've got a clear conscience and a satisfied appetite.
Reading the actual article, it's (unsurprisingly) not nearly as inflammatory as the media headlines are. The gist of it in my quick reading is that people should eat fewer calories, that eliminating meat and replacing the same level of calories with the USDA suggested amount of fruits and vegetables increases GHG emissions, energy use, and water use because of a few factors.
A lot of crops are extremely energy inefficient to produce and are more luxuries than necessities. Look at the controversy around water use with almonds and pistachios in California for a contemporary example. The authors (and prior literature) suggest that shifting to the USDA recommendation is largely responsible for increased energy use. It's not that vegetarianism is inherently bad, and the authors state this, it's that switching to the suggested food mix, including very inefficient fruits and vegetables as elements of that food mix, while also keeping calories what they are now leads to the most inefficiency and therefore more energy used.
They also note that if the world did transition towards less animal protein, it's unlikely we'd remain as inefficient, and that the negatives that are seen in this meta-analysis are largely due to certain crops skewing the numbers towards waste. It's an interesting premise overall with results that seem to support previous studies on the subject, but it's not "vegetables are bad eat more meat guys," as enticing as that idea might be.
If anybody's interested in the full thing for reading, shoot me a PM.
A lot of crops are extremely energy inefficient to produce and are more luxuries than necessities. Look at the controversy around water use with almonds and pistachios in California for a contemporary example. The authors (and prior literature) suggest that shifting to the USDA recommendation is largely responsible for increased energy use. It's not that vegetarianism is inherently bad, and the authors state this, it's that switching to the suggested food mix, including very inefficient fruits and vegetables as elements of that food mix, while also keeping calories what they are now leads to the most inefficiency and therefore more energy used.
They also note that if the world did transition towards less animal protein, it's unlikely we'd remain as inefficient, and that the negatives that are seen in this meta-analysis are largely due to certain crops skewing the numbers towards waste. It's an interesting premise overall with results that seem to support previous studies on the subject, but it's not "vegetables are bad eat more meat guys," as enticing as that idea might be.
If anybody's interested in the full thing for reading, shoot me a PM.
Krauser Kat
Member
This study is kind of bullshit considering they took calorie rich meat (bacon) and ice berg lettuce.
4 slices of bacon
vs
93 cups of iceberg lettuce to equal 467 calories.
Who the fuck eats 93 cups of lettuce for every 4 slices of bacon.
4 slices of bacon
vs
93 cups of iceberg lettuce to equal 467 calories.
Who the fuck eats 93 cups of lettuce for every 4 slices of bacon.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
So basically,Mjöölnir;189517418 said:
You're right. We should eat people instead.
So basically,
Pretty much. However I'm still amazed that people buy in to a story like this and believe that this could somehow go unnoticed by the meat industry until now.
the_prime_mover
Member
I can't access the paper directly as it has a cost associated with it, but it seems to look at a number of scenarios the best of which is to keep the current USDA food mix, but reduce caloric consumption to align with 'normal' caloric needs. Makes sense, but without seeing what the actual dietary options are, it is hard to say that they are providing options that don't include a number of foods that have a large environmental impact to nutrient and calorie ratio. It might be easy to inflate some numbers by including things like melons and roughage which use tons of water and land with little health benefit. The true economic cost of our consumption is definitely something that needs to be studied in detail though.
BertramCooper
Banned
Mjöölnir;189517418 said:
I mean, I don't implicitly trust Vice as a news source, but I sure as hell wouldn't link to an article from Huffington Post, of all places, to refute them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked