-
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
Let's wait to see what the National Enquirer has to say.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
That article was fine and I'm not a fan of huffpro either
Actual study provided to research gate by the author.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...atterns_and_dietary_recommendations_in_the_US
Everybody should eat sweet potatoes
You should try reading the article
Just chiming again so I can hear myself talk:
Everybody saying that the metric of using celery or lettuce is unrealistic, yeah, you're right! That's the point the original journal publication is trying to make. That doesn't come across in media reports very well, but they're saying the increase comes from following the USDA food mix recommendations, which include energy-inefficient and calorie-poor foods like the ones you're all naming. This study wasn't to say vegetarianism is inherently inefficient, just that we cannot have everybody switch over to it without adjusting not only dietary suggestions, but also farming practices.
Everybody saying that the metric of using celery or lettuce is unrealistic, yeah, you're right! That's the point the original journal publication is trying to make. That doesn't come across in media reports very well, but they're saying the increase comes from following the USDA food mix recommendations, which include energy-inefficient and calorie-poor foods like the ones you're all naming. This study wasn't to say vegetarianism is inherently inefficient, just that we cannot have everybody switch over to it without adjusting not only dietary suggestions, but also farming practices.
Guilty as charged, however one of the articles use reason one does not. Has nothing to do with it being from HP, hell I'd link to Fox News if they displayed the same basic reasonable conclusion the HP link does. So please, read both articles and tell me I'm wrong instead of that irrelevant "comeback".
BertramCooper
Banned
Or I'll just read the study.
billy beane
Banned
I'm pretty sure the problem with climate change has very little to do with the food we eat though.
I am not a scientist but that's just a guess.
I am not a scientist but that's just a guess.
the_prime_mover
Member
Agriculture, land use, and transportation are not insignificant contributors to climate change and if specific food types have a significantly higher impact than available substitutes then that is information worth knowing.
While the research just focus on a few aspects, people just need to accept that the problem is way more complex than just eating habits. Lots of vegetables and fruits are rather inefficient in production. Then we also have to think about distribution, lots of them are distributed rather wasteful, with planes or in small quantity. Of course we want them fresh and in excellent quality too. And how do we cook? How much waste do we produce? How often do we throw vegetables away because we have forgotten them in the fridge and they have turned mushy, dry, grey etc.?
TouchMyBox
Member
Why are we comparing iceberg lettuce and celery to bacon and pork? Iceberg lettuce is infamous for being garbage and celery is famous for being a low calorie food.
How about an actual useful comparison, such as beans versus meat?
How about an actual useful comparison, such as beans versus meat?
Spot on
God Dayumm
Banned
Beans require too much cooking tho. Once they are done you already spent more fossil fuels than with meat, and much more than with lettuce which is eaten raw
On the other hand, they don't need refrigeration... this is though, I need to make a study
deltatheta
Member
I gather the actual study is comparing getting all your calories in proportion to USDA recommendations with a vegetarian diet vs. omnivore diet, with the vegetarian diet ending up a slightly higher carbon footprint. It's more of a criticism of USDA recommendations, I guess.
Once BetramCooper gets back from reading the study he can correct me if I'm wrong.
They actually interviewed the researchers, it's a fairly well-rounded article
shadowfall
Member
As a vegetarian - I honestly could not care less about this. Reading this survey (if it is factually correct) will not make me change my diet anyway.
Guys this shit is right in the OP. They looked at "US food consumption patterns and measured their energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water needs." And from the article: "Carnegie Mellon researchers even say that updated USDA recommendations—which emphasize cutting back on meat and consuming more fruits, vegetables, and seafood—are encouraging citizens to inadvertently use more resources and thus cause more “emissions per calorie.”"
Sure we could imagine *a* vegetarian diet that economizes on emissions. But both the diet the USDA encourages and the one that we observe people choosing end up increasing emissions and water usage.
So if we want to do vegetarianism as ecological policy we need to rethink how we do it. Probably everyone has to move to California or to within a hundred miles of a Great Lake.
SmarmySmurf
Banned
The junk science war on vegetarianism continues, it seems.
voodoojohn
Banned
I think people may be underestimating what proportion of a vegetarian's daily caloric intake comes from rice, bread, and other carbs. I would also assume that most vegetarians just consume fewer calories per day than your average omnivore.
Glendemonium
Member
Surprised I haven't seen people proclaim "WAR ON VEGANS" yet. Been seeing stuff crop up lately on my feeds that debunks the vegan diet.
EDIT-nvm I was beaten by 3 posts.
EDIT-nvm I was beaten by 3 posts.
It's not pound per pound, it's not calorie per calorie.
Why is this junk science? What do you think the study is saying that is junk?
I imagine a lot of people read the OP, don't really grasp that point immediately (I didn't) and then want to share their thoughts. I think posts like this help, and when people eventually get to them they'll adjust their understanding of what the message is.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
It doesn't really debunk the vegan diet and that other thread was based on a poll over a year old and people still glossed over any facts and became an us vs them fight for both sides.
Interesting, thanks.
It's not that a vegetarian diet is necessarily bad for the planet, per say, it's that if you look at some recommended vegetarian diets, calorie to calorie, they are less environmentally friendly. Some vegetables, like lettuce, are super costly to produce if you consider calories, while others are less so. What the study is showing is that environmental issues tied to agriculture and eating habits are significantly more complex than "vegetables are better"
It has quite a lot to do with our eating habits. Producing meat creates greenhouse gas emissions in a multitude of ways (the animals themselves are a huge source of gases like methane, they can require far more mechanical work that requires all kinds of resources like oil more than a lot of vegetables do that can just grow outside without too much interference, we have to destroy even more forests etc. to produce food for animals that we then eat - forests that are great CO2 sinks etc.) that accumulate & make meat production a big problem.
This is kind of a shitty research and really doesn't reveal anything new. Of course there are vegetables & other food of the plant kingdom that aren't super-efficient to produce and shouldn't be too big of a cornerstone of a vegetarian's diet if they want to be ecologically friendly. That's not new information. At all.
So the study says that if all inhabitants in the US would switch to the USDA Dietary Guidelines, which include decreases in caloric intake and decreases in red meat, sugars, fats, oils and increases in fruit, dairy, vegetable and seafood intake, that would raise GHG emissions, blue water footprint and overall energy use.
The conclusion they arrive to is, quote: "These findings provide reasons for decision makers to consider both the nutritional value and environmental implications of food choices when developing dietary recommendations."
They then compare to studies from the German Nutrition Society recommendations that have a lesser increase in dairy, seafood and fruits (the recommended fruits are generally very energy and water intensive) and more increase in grains.
So basically they're saying the USDA should think a bit more carefully. But really says nothing about vegetarianism or meat-eating being better for the environment. Just that it's not clear-cut that eating "healthy" = better for environment. And who's been going around with that in their head?
What do the USDA Dietary Guidelines actually say about vegetables? What vegetables do they recommend?
^^ Agreed, but the study is about the US dietary guidelines.. and more about how dietary guidelines nowadays should include analyses of the environmental impact of diet, not only health. I wouldn't say it's shitty research really. Just that people don't want to read what the research is about. That's shitty.
It's not a long read.
PS. In regards to shittyness, the Vice article is the highest grade of shitty.
The conclusion they arrive to is, quote: "These findings provide reasons for decision makers to consider both the nutritional value and environmental implications of food choices when developing dietary recommendations."
They then compare to studies from the German Nutrition Society recommendations that have a lesser increase in dairy, seafood and fruits (the recommended fruits are generally very energy and water intensive) and more increase in grains.
So basically they're saying the USDA should think a bit more carefully. But really says nothing about vegetarianism or meat-eating being better for the environment. Just that it's not clear-cut that eating "healthy" = better for environment. And who's been going around with that in their head?
What do the USDA Dietary Guidelines actually say about vegetables? What vegetables do they recommend?
^^ Agreed, but the study is about the US dietary guidelines.. and more about how dietary guidelines nowadays should include analyses of the environmental impact of diet, not only health. I wouldn't say it's shitty research really. Just that people don't want to read what the research is about. That's shitty.
It's not a long read.
PS. In regards to shittyness, the Vice article is the highest grade of shitty.
Read the HuffPo article. The Vice one is absolutely trash. The research found that kale, broccoli, rice, potatoes, spinach and wheat (+more) are still cleaner than pork (which means especially cleaner than beef). OP is highly misleading.
Curious to see if they took into account how about ~half of the world's crops goes to feeding our livestock (which is a massive energy-conversion loss) and how it compares to us just eating it instead.
Curious to see if they took into account how about ~half of the world's crops goes to feeding our livestock (which is a massive energy-conversion loss) and how it compares to us just eating it instead.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
per calorie, yeah
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Here's another fun study for your consideration:
Vegetarians are 'less healthy and have a lower quality of life than meat-eaters', scientists say
Vegetarians are 'less healthy and have a lower quality of life than meat-eaters', scientists say
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
No, it's terrible science journalism. The paper itself says the exact opposite of the claim in the topic title. The paper claims that "healthy food" and "environmentally friendly food" are currently at odds with each other. The paper claims that vegan diets are better for the environment.
Yeah, that thing humans, as omnivores, have been doing since the birth of our existence as a species. So unnatural and barbarous!
Shrike_Priest
Member
How this study became "vegetarianism is bad for the environment" when the study doesn't actually measure a vegetarian diet is beyond me. Especially when they explicitly say that other studies have found that reducing meat intake is more efficient at lowering your environmental footprint than switching to a "healthier diet" (read, omnivore diet with both meat, seafood and lots of fruit and Veg). Please correct me if I'm reading it wrong.
"Additionally, in light of the growing evidence that meat production has negative environmental implications, a number of studies including the aforementioned analyses examine the impacts of reducing meat consumption on resource use and emissions through the food supply sys- tem. The results of these studies (Heller and Keoleian 2014; Vanham et al. 2013a, b; Renault and Wallender 2000; Marlow et al. 2009) demonstrate that adopting a vegetarian diet or even reducing meat consumption by 50 % is more effective in reducing energy use, the blue water footprint, and GHG emissions through the food supply system than adopting a healthier diet based on regional dietary guidelines.."
Anyone going vego is more likely to reduce their environmental footprint than increase it as long as they aren't going for tons of dairy, but find protein in legumes or grains (which is pretty much the basic veggy 101 diet).
"Additionally, in light of the growing evidence that meat production has negative environmental implications, a number of studies including the aforementioned analyses examine the impacts of reducing meat consumption on resource use and emissions through the food supply sys- tem. The results of these studies (Heller and Keoleian 2014; Vanham et al. 2013a, b; Renault and Wallender 2000; Marlow et al. 2009) demonstrate that adopting a vegetarian diet or even reducing meat consumption by 50 % is more effective in reducing energy use, the blue water footprint, and GHG emissions through the food supply system than adopting a healthier diet based on regional dietary guidelines.."
Anyone going vego is more likely to reduce their environmental footprint than increase it as long as they aren't going for tons of dairy, but find protein in legumes or grains (which is pretty much the basic veggy 101 diet).
Aztechnology
Member
By "Munchies Staff". I want to know what dumbass actually decided this was worth publishing, and on a Vice affiliated site no less. I'm a meat eater and even wishing that meat had a lower carbon footprint I know this to not be true given all the factors this completely ignores.
Lulz study? Funded by whom?
I find it silly, and I love my bacon!!
Big meat playing it's old tricks again
HiredN00bs
Member
Just so you guys know, abolishing slavery is going to wreak havoc on the southern economy.
There are chickens volunteering to be slaughtered and eaten by you? You must be amazing!
Have I overread something, or is the studyat least the part that is referenced in that articleignoring the fact that live stock has to be fed with plant-based food as well? Or are they arguing that plant-based food for live stock has a higher caloric density than plant-based food that humans usually consume? In that case, you could make the base that high-caloric plant-based food is still better for the environment than meat.
Yeah it's all linked but I have never known an obese vegetarian... granted I need to read the article/study but this seems weak sauce
There isn't some family overeating lettuce instead of eating a pig
Edit: Read article and it skims over some shit. I'd have to read research but emphasising overeating a meat diet, sustainable farming and fishing, forrestation, buying in season vegetables (instead of buying stuff that needed to be transported massive distances) or locally produced goods of any sort would be more helpful than this fluff piece.
This is how people get annoyed with information overload with shit like this. IT is imbalanced and generally unhelpful to the average person who might actually want to help the environment, more of a see how wrong those know it all vegetarians might be slant.
There isn't some family overeating lettuce instead of eating a pig
Edit: Read article and it skims over some shit. I'd have to read research but emphasising overeating a meat diet, sustainable farming and fishing, forrestation, buying in season vegetables (instead of buying stuff that needed to be transported massive distances) or locally produced goods of any sort would be more helpful than this fluff piece.
This is how people get annoyed with information overload with shit like this. IT is imbalanced and generally unhelpful to the average person who might actually want to help the environment, more of a see how wrong those know it all vegetarians might be slant.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked