Taking Bearings

Scattershooting on the science supporting, and perils of, vegetarianism and veganism

No, this isn’t a post wherein a Texan lampoons vegetarians and vegans. In fact, I include an experimental vegan enchilada recipe below. Nor is it my intent to dissuade anyone from diet decisions related to their religious belief system. My intent herein is to respect dietary lifestyle choices that people make that work for them, especially if they sincerely intend those choices to be part of solutions to the many social and ecological problems humanity faces.

There are, however, perils inherent in many lifestyle choices, including plant-based diets. Some people choose vegetarian and vegan diets simply based other ethical concerns regarding the treatment of animals. I respect that, but well-intentioned ethics can also blindly bring additional hunger, disease, and famine to the poor in this world.

My intent here is simply to point out that there are health, environmental, and economic perils frequently overlooked in often ideologically-driven soft and friendly coverage of these lifestyles. According to growing sales figures of plant-based meat substitutes and other plant-based diet options in both Europe and America, the time has come to take a closer look.

To be sure, the medical evidence and warnings against too much red meat consumption, and the hazards of toxin bioaccumulation in some species of fish are substantial. While the perils of many omnivore diets continue to be well-studied, the potential perils related to plant-based diets have received far less attention. Regardless, the slate for plant-based diets is not clean.

While many assume that vegetarian and vegan options are “healthier” and that plant-based diets and fully substitute for diets that include meat, seafood, and dairy a study (linked below) published in the ‘American Journal of Clinical Nutrition’ found, for example, that children on vegan diets were, on average, 1.2 inches shorter and had up to 6 percent less bone mineral content compared to meat-eaters in their demographic cohort.

Empirical smoke may evidence a larger fire. Research continues on the impacts of meat-eating omnivorous diets, but more research needs to be done on the nutritional impacts of lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets (LOV) diets that include milk, dairy products and eggs, but no animal meat as well as vegan diets that do not include any animal products.

Many people assume that adopting plant-based diet is also better for the planet and adoption of such dietary practices seems like a science-based counter to methane and other greenhouse gas-producing farming of animals (especially famously flatulent cows). But this ignores argument that, despite the fact that the per calorie and protein production per acre of land devoted to raising plants is higher (see more on these efficiencies below) because of real-world harvesting, transportation, and economics /labor  issues,  the world would— according to some experts —  need approximately 30 percent more cleared agricultural land to produce a plant-based diet for the plant. More agricultural land will in some regions be obtained by deforestation.

Energy expended in harvesting and transportation are issues often overlooked by vegetarian and vegan advocates. Farmers currently produce more than sufficient protein for the planet’s population, but inefficient transport means about a third of production is wasted. If plant-based diets were truly a small-farm supporting panacea, one could argue that this might be expected to increase the food transport woes of the world.

To feed the world a plant-based diet we’ll also need the plant-based diet agricultural production and transport to be industrialized along the same lines we have now. Whether we want it or not, that will happen because of a number of economic factors that drive agricultural industrialization now. Any conception that a shift to plant-based diets is going to mean a return to small family farms is folly. Contrary to the assumptions of many who have adopted plant-based diets who think only of small famers growing kale, the industrial agricultural giants are already heavily invested in promoting plant-based diets dependent on crops they already grow (e.g., wheat and soy).

Especially in cases of industrial farms, but also private farms in some climates, the additional land use will require more natural and artificial fertilizers that contribute to nitrogen contamination of waterways and oceans. Add to that well-documented and observed additional nitrogen burden the need for additional herbicide and pesticide use. Additional freshwater, already in short supply in some regions will also be needed to support the additional agricultural land. The water related peril is exacerbated by the anticipated increase in extreme weather, including drought, that can devastate crops.

One answer to this increase, of course, might be found in the research and increased plantings of genetically modified (GMO) crops. While the overwhelming evidence is that GMO cops are both safe and advantageous, they also have some perils to be discussed in future essays.  Regardless, use of GMO crops plays against the “naturalist” views of many who embrace plant-based diets and certainly plays to the advantage of large international agricultural companies.

One the other hand, there are evidence-based  arguments to be made that because so much agricultural land is dedicated to raising animals for meat,  along with the crop tonnage to feed them, that demand for agricultural land and the accompanying pollution perils outlined above would be greatly  reduced. As above, multiple studies have shown that plant-based agriculture is more calorie and protein-produced per acre productive than animal-based agriculture, produce less pollution and manure based toxins. Multiple studies show that vegetarian and vegan diets produce substantially  less greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

Again, however,  one needs to consider the real-world costs of all facets of production, harvesting, transportation, etc.  Many of the non-peer reviewed literature promoted by plant-based diet advocates overlook these realities, No authoritarian system in the world could overnight ban meat production, reallocate land (especially towards optimal local efficiencies),  and build the irrigation and engineering infrastructure needed to make some radical shift to plant-based diets that exclude meat.

Even if one concludes that the world should move toward plant-based diets, the reality is that absent the type of agriculture control exercised by Stalin and Mao — controls that created great famines that killed millions of people — the world will be using land for production meat for decades and possibly centuries to come.

Thankfully a middle path exists. Effective solutions are rarely binary.

While plant-based diets have the advantages listed above,  studies suggesting that, on balance, the world can achieve the nearly the same positive environmental impacts by reducing rather excluding meat and dairy food groups. While this would not eliminate ethical concerns over the treatment of animals, it would certainly reduce practices people find cruel and objectionable without the imposition of one’s ethics on others.

With projected population increases to 9 billion by 2050 our current systems of agriculture and the balance of energy expended on meat vs plant based production is seemingly unsustainable. According to researchers in Copenhagen who evaluated and synthesized dozens of peer-reviewed published studies, the data clearly indicates that “agriculture alone is responsible for fully 10–12 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs).” [Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154110 ] If current practices simply scale up to meet a global population of 9 billion,  current published literature — our current best science — estimates that “GHGEs will rise by up to 150% of current emission levels by 2030.”

Using the Life Cycle Impact Assessment technique (LCAs) “that factor in impacts of production, transport, processing, storage, waste disposal and other life stages of food production” the study provided evidence that  vegan diets and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets not relying on locally produced products — a privileged consumption available to few — or that contain highly processed products can carry a negative environmental footprint larger than locally sourced meat-based diets.

Cultural preferences aside, In some cases and localities meat-eating diets can be more environmentally sustainable than plant-based diets. In addition, the Copenhagen study cited showed that people who followed dietary recommendations for the Mediterranean diet, for example, had comparable environment impacts with those on strict vegetarian and vegan diets.

Omnivore diets vary considerably (e.g., the Atlantic diet,  Mediterranean diet, Nordic diet, etc.) and the study concludes that semi-vegetarian diet, also called a flexitarian diet (Full disclosure, my personal preference) that occasional includes meat may be the most sustainable of all.

If one is concerned about the environmental consequences of a diet,  the key take-away is to reduce meat consumption but also focus on local sourcing. Much more key to reducing environmental impacts than the type of diet is  is local sourcing.  The best diet is one that takes into account what foods are available locally.

The “feel-good” linkage of plant-based diets with small family farmers is also not supported by the global data. It is, at best a localized linkage enjoyed mostly by privileged economic elites in economically and technologically advanced countries.

It’s not the traditional plant-based diet options from cultures based in economically developing nations or people living on remote pastural lands growing free-range quinoa that are appearing in markets, it’s the industrialized meat-substitutes that are growing in popularity.

Vegetarianism and veganism are not new. References to equivalent dietary practices are ancient. Restrictive diets have also long been a part of the ethics associated with the practice of religious faith.

In the modern era, vegetarianism and vegan dietary restrictions have also taken on the social currency of rebellion, protest, and otherwise incorporated into “return to land” and wide variety of countercultural movements (both left and right leaning). There are even ties to women’s suffrage movements.

All of that is fine — people ground their ethics on many varied perspectives in life — but no one should blindly preach that plant-based diets are somehow both scientifically and morally superior.  There are too many cultural and local factors to consider.

Vegetarianism and veganism can also threaten economies and cultures.  Our diets are much more based on cultural preferences and personal experience than caloric  energy efficiencies or other factors I have discussed.

Do we really want a world without the cultural glories of Coq au vin?  Do we want a world where some vegan version of an authoritarian Pol Pot orders everyone to slurp some algae-based slimly stew  because it has the  optimum nutrition with the lowest adverse environmental impacts?

Moderation —and an eye towards fresh and local—  often avoids the extremes and supports local businesses and traditional cultures

People should challenge the practicalities of their own ethical choices when applied more broadly and on a larger scale, especially if their  consumption is a lifestyle choice easily available to only those in economically and technologically advanced nations.

Veritas.