Studies show that agriculture and other land uses contribute about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, so the vegetarian approach is not always correct. According to the researchers, there is no general solution that will suit everyone, since in countries where the income is low, the residents need more animal proteins to get proper nutrition
The groups advocating vegetarianism are loud and the vegans are noisy, these are also based on moral claims and environmental damage. These claims stem from an approach that states that raising cattle for milk, butter and cheese, raising farm animals for eggs and meat constitutes harm to animals, and moreover - harm to the environment.
We will leave the claims to morality to the philosophers and focus on the environment. It is common to think that veganism and vegetarianism are environmentally preferable to a diet that includes eating animal proteins, isn't it?
In a study published by THomson Reuters Foundation The researchers showed that it is possible to help mitigate climate change and yet "sometimes, eat a bacon sandwich and enjoy a few oysters." In a test conducted, it was found that in 95% of the countries tested, a menu that includes meat, fish or dairy products only once a day will leave less climatic footprints and harm the water balance less compared to a vegetarian menu that also includes eggs and milk. This is partly because growing feed for dairy cattle requires a lot of energy expenditure, large areas of land and the use of fertilizers and pesticides. All of these cause the emission of greenhouse gases. On the other hand, a menu that includes insects, small fish and shellfish has a similar environmental impact to a vegetarian menu but has a higher nutritional value and is therefore obviously better.
The researchers tested in 140 countries the effect of different menus on water use and greenhouse gas emissions. The menus ranged from one day a week without meat, or without red meat, or a menu based on fish and of course vegetarianism, the test was done to check if the call of environmental activists to switch to vegetarianism to mitigate climate change and stop deforestation is justified (forests are cut down to open pastures and cattle breeding).
Studies show that agriculture and other land uses contribute about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, so the vegetarian approach is not always correct. According to the researchers, there is no general solution that will suit everyone, since in countries where the income is low, the residents need more animal proteins to get proper nutrition.
That is, a menu that would be less harmful to the environment in poor countries must be adjusted and include animal protein to prevent malnutrition. On the other hand, it is clear that in rich countries the residents must reduce their consumption of meat, dairy products and eggs.
For example, it was found that the production of beef causes the emission of greenhouse gases, including methane, in an amount 115 times more than the production of nuts and 40 times more than soybeans (the researchers do not refer to the clearing of forests for the cultivation of soybeans and do not refer to the raising of AR poultry). According to the World Resources Institute, diners in North America, Europe and the former USSR make up only a quarter of the world's population, but eat more than half of the world's meat production that comes from ruminants, such as cattle and sheep (again, there is no separate reference to pigs and poultry a .r).
A contemporary study found that: the production of a kilo of beef in Paraguay "contributes" to the production of greenhouse gases 17 times more than in Denmark, this is because in Latin America forests are cut down to open up areas that will be used as pastures for cattle breeding. That is, it is also possible to produce and eat meat with less environmental damage.
The researchers do not publish practical suggestions, but from a review of the findings the conclusions are clear to anyone with eyes in their head (AR).
40 תגובות
This sentence "Agriculture and other land uses contribute about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, so the vegetarian approach is not always correct."
is an internal contradiction.
Reducing land use will come from switching to a vegetarian diet, so the vegetarian approach is correct in this context.
Since among the respondents there are "vegans"
The "vegan" will come up and explain
What is "veganism"?
Are vegetables grown on cow manure allowed?
Snails and insects are not allowed? In India they plow fields
Is it appropriate to grow vegetables with oxen?
In China, fish are raised in rice fields - is it allowed?
And so on and on, so where are the boundaries and differences?
Anonymous user
The joke about the plants is really not funny, I'm sure if you saw videos about how chickens' beaks are cut off, or the suffering of any number of other things that animals go through in the meat industry, you might be less amused. But you probably prefer not to see or understand.
The use of the supposedly mystical argument "we can digest meat, so it is a justification for any suffering we will cause any creature on this planet for a slight improvement in taste or a slight decrease in price" is childish. Yes humans can digest meat, there is no cosmic message here. In addition, we can also live on a vegan diet. If you're looking for a mystical message in human existence, it's the ability of man (as long as he doesn't actively neutralize it) to feel the pain of another animal and recoil from it. If you saw a man hitting his dog with a stick? You must have been a man to stop him. I at least hope so. When you eat meat you cause much greater suffering to another animal.
I wonder when people will recognize their disabilities. The inability of the average person to hear/see the suffering of the plants does not mean that they do not suffer. The universe limited our hearing and that of the animals from hearing the screeches of the plants being eaten, because otherwise we would be deafened by the noise.
We are omnivores. Our bodies are built to eat everything.
The money and energy should be invested in improving the living conditions of all our food.
my father
What you wrote is simply not true.
Almost 90% of the soy goes to the meat industry and not to vegans. If everyone were vegan, not only would there be no need to increase the areas for agriculture, it would even be possible to reduce them.
The second thing you said is loaded and invalid. To say that because man does not break down cellulose he is not a vegetarian animal? There are many completely or almost completely vegetarian animals that do not break down cellulose.
Man is an omnivore, he can break down meat and can live on a plant diet. Certainly today with the technology that exists today.
The carbon footprint of poultry is much smaller. Man is not a vegetarian animal, he does not digest cellulose for example. The carbon chain of raising animals for meat needs to be addressed to reduce emissions. It will probably be difficult to throw out the baby with the bath water. In any case, most people will have to add milk and eggs to a vegetarian diet, otherwise there simply won't be enough food for everyone. Even today in Brazil, forests are cleared to grow soybeans for the diet of vegans in the West.
It is quite clear that this is a trending article.
It is already known to everyone and to most scientists (those who are not biased...), that the conversion of forested areas to the cultivation of corn (see what is happening in the Amazon), which is mostly intended for beef consumption for the meat industry (about 80%), is probably the greatest harm to the green health of the world.
There are no words to describe the unintelligent anti-obesity....maybe anti-climate.
Headlines headlines and nothing to eat
An unnecessary and trending article.
"In a study published by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, researchers showed..."
Can I please get a reference to the research itself? I couldn't find it on the Tompson-Reuters website
"A menu that includes meat, fish or dairy products only once a day will leave fewer climatic traces and harm the water balance less compared to a vegetarian menu that also includes eggs and milk."
The conclusions are really clear.. If the consumption of animal products once a day leaves less of a climate footprint than the consumption of animal products around the clock, even if the latter is only vegetarian, then the consumption of animal products has a direct impact on the environment, which increases with increasing consumption, therefore, Consumption of animal products is better climatically than the two options.
It's a shame that the title mentions veganism and the content ignores it..
Thanks to all the respondents, it turns out that some of them know each other
Dr. Rosenthal personally, including his nutritional preferences,
like A, Erez and others,
Thanks also to nutrition experts who may suggest
change the length of their nomadic life and move to work
in agriculture and growing peas,
The inhabitants of the northern circle, to nomads in Asia and Africa
Like the Mongols or the Maasai, the Gabra and the Randilla
These and others will learn from the responding experts
to abandon their herds and switch to breeding kitaniyas,
Indeed it turns out that among the respondents there are experts for everything
It's just a shame they don't know how to read...
Who financed this nonsense?
One really has to misunderstand ecology and depleting natural resources as a direct product of the industrialization of death from animals, in order to raise this deliberate and trending deception.
Humanity for its bloody choices brings a kidney on the earth,
And all because of habits that kill not only the animals, but us, humans.
I wanted to write an angry comment.
But so much was written before there is no longer any point.
It is quite clear that Asaf Rosenthal knows and understands that eating meat is not justified and leads to severe damage to the environment (which he often preaches to protect), on the other hand Rosenthal loves meat and animal food and finds it difficult to give it up.
That's why he looks for every possible excuse to go against veganism.
It doesn't matter that most of his claims are incorrect, and they are all irrelevant to him in any way
come on. It takes a lot of farming to feed the cattle and sheep, so you save nothing and only lose.
Start this article that vegetarians and vegans are noisy and loud? Lovely of you, really makes me want to read the rest.
The big problem of humanity is population explosion! With the end of the great wars and the progress of medicine and the quality of life, we are simply growing at a crazy rate from 700 million a century ago to 7 billion today! Soon we will live in tiny apartments in skyscrapers and live on a fixed state allowance. Childbirth must be limited by legislation!
In short - a jerk.
Claims A and proves B.
From this article, Amsher definitely understands that a vegan diet is the solution
The article is so bad and jumpy.
. Unfaithful to the facts. It seems that the author does not understand the subject at all. Not the claims he makes without the real arguments. And not the answers to the claims. without proper facts.
If this is what scientific thinking looked like, we would be in the Middle Ages today.
To all the "nice" and less nice commenters,
I already wrote in the past that: "end of response in reading comprehension"
And it turns out that many of the respondents did not do so,
Neighbor :
I bring research results (and there are links),
And it is appropriate that those who "criticize" refer to the studies
And not to me...
As I wrote in the middle "The researchers do not relate
to clear forests for the purpose of growing soybeans',
As for "veganism" - what is it?
Are vegetables grown on cow manure allowed?
Snails and insects are not allowed? In India they plow fields
Is it appropriate to grow vegetables with oxen?
In China, fish are raised in rice fields - is it allowed?
And so on and on, so where are the boundaries and differences?
As I wrote at the end "There are no suggestions, but it is understandable",
So those who didn't "manage" to understand better read again,
And to those who attack me personally:
I have "broad shoulders" and I have no problem accepting criticism
But it is appropriate that before stupid slanders and establishing a position
They will read other things I wrote on the subject and maybe they will "succeed"
Understand my position...
Happy New Year …
The author of the article wrote in a respectable and matter-of-fact manner, I hope that non-matter-of-fact comments will not let him down.
For the most part, vegetarianism is nonsense, and veganism is a mistake. An article and a podcast that explains the main failures here
http://www.pinat-hay.com/anti-tzim-audio.htm
Protein is not a must for life and the best example for millions of vegans in the world. In weak countries, people do not have the financial ability to buy meat regularly and malnutrition is more related to the right variety of food such as vegetables and fruits that are not accessible to them. The writer also understands that growing meat, especially in the Western world, causes enormous damage and it is not clear what the writer wants.
A very strange article, with a Jewish "solution", but I have no doubt that veganism is the least polluting diet.
And all the rest are just excuses.
And what nonsense that there are places that "need" more products from life for some fart, to grow and eat legumes and here we have solved the problem of protein, because by growing legumes you can get more protein and vitamins than growing meat.
Those who want to be healthy and harm the environment as little as possible should eat vegan.
I saw that they responded before me as well, but still, in order to emphasize, I will also note that there is no comparison between veganism and a diet that includes eating meat, even though in the opening it is claimed that veganism harms the environment more.
It is obvious that those who wrote the article and those who allowed it to be published adapted the reality to their personal opinions and not to the reality, which is a real shame because it can also influence the opinions of other people.
How many half facts in one article.
How do you let something like this get published?
Another second they will support that the world is flat or like Trump they will say that there is no global warming.
All humanity must be exterminated. Only this will save the world from sea level rise
Looking for volunteers. In my opinion, the first ones who should set a personal example are those who believe in the dramatic negative impact of humanity on the world.
As we know, they are the majority and maybe this move itself will solve the problem and we won't have to continue to the very end
As with any article on the subject, the unknown is ignored
and make assumptions for the future based on a present that changes every year.
What is the ecological damage that will be caused by growing meat in a laboratory from cell proliferation?
The technology is already old and it will only get better and cheaper in the future.
If and when they stop eating living things,
What will they do with the billions of chickens, cows and pigs that are not built to survive in the wild and are no longer profitable?
Will they be released to roam free?
Will the predator population increase?
Will billions of corpses rot in the streets?
What effect will it have on the environment?
Is the human population itself
Is it expected to grow at all?
Not obvious at all.
What is clear is that there is
More unknown than known
And that natural food is better in all respects than processed and industrial food.
And that animal protein is not at all necessary for survival.
And that the vegan and vegetarian groups are indeed loud and boisterous.
A delusional article by a pseudo-scientist. Come on, no one went through the article before this hash was published?
The argument that vegetarianism harms the environment more than eating meat because of the use of agricultural land ignores the fact that in order to raise cattle, more agricultural land is needed to feed it...
When we learn to treat animals as equals and not treat them as a product intended for slaughter and eating, we will behave fairly towards humans.
Humans are not omnivores and certainly not carnivores. Let animals live and learn to behave accordingly and respect them - because the moment we learn to respect other species of life we will learn to respect the lives of our own species.
Here is the original study: https://clf.jhsph.edu/sites/default/files/2019-09/country-specific-dietary-shifts-mitigate-climate-and-water-crises.pdf
Look at diagram 5 p. 8.
A vegan diet is the one that will reduce climate damage the most.
It also reduces more than a plant-based diet + in the bottom of the food chain (insects, molluscs, etc.).
Both lead by a considerable margin over any other diet.
The article also contains recommendations per country, for example Israel is given as an example, which is one of the countries where the transition to veganism (we will not eat insects and shellfish here for kosher reasons) will give the largest reduction in the climate signature, about 66%.
All the studies prove this and prove this and each study contradicts the previous one but the topic for discussion is not measured in the research because animal slaughter is a blatant and shameful existing fact so what are the studies if everything appears clearly in front of the eyes and the blood oozes from the bodies of the animals
First of all, I will start by saying that you cannot call veganism and vegetarianism a diet because this is a life-long thing like any other fixed eating habits. Secondly, you talked mainly about vegetarianism and very little about veganism and not at all about carnivores. The opening of the article was very misleading. Third and last thing, how dare you write that it is mandatory to eat animal protein in order not to become malnourished, this is not true and you cannot write it as a fact. Hundreds of thousands of vegans and vegetarians around the world can tell you that this change in diet did not make them malnourished, let me be the first of them. Many researchers have found that it is possible to live on plant protein and even better for certain athletes and people with various diseases. This article is not based or accurate at all. Shame that people dare to publish such things.
It is shameful for the reader of such an article especially that its author is an educated person living in a modern and enlightened era, as well as the comments that reinforce the points of this article.
I will not refer to the disparaging style of worldviews other than those accepted by the writer who apparently likes to eat meat, I will refer to the fact that once you know how much the animal you feed on suffered, it should be enough for you not to be fed by it. There were many trees in the garden, he did not have to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, and here is the result: removal from the garden. Recycling will not save this ball, but the human beings who will respect every life on it, stop fighting with each other, stop taking advantage of the weaker ones just because they can.
I am always amazed every time by those people who sit dressed in the best clothes and look so wonderful but order veal or lamb from the menu as if they ordered a glass of hail. Do you really not understand what is wrong with this? really?
I didn't understand how exactly it is good to abuse animals, imprison them, exploit them and finally slaughter them. How can this be good for the environment?
The carnivores want to continue eating meat, fish, dairy products and eggs, and for that they "hold on to the horns of the altar".
They invent any reason the main thing is to keep eating blood dripping food.
The calculation is clear: eating meat a. not healthy B. An industry of terrible suffering to live. third. Devastating climatic effect.
Vegetarianism solves the three challenges. Herds of goats allow the growth of areas that were destroyed by cutting down trees, allowing the renewal of green areas.
About five years ago, out of concern for the environment, I published
And I wrote things "from the head of the fever",
https://www.hayadan.org.il/between-naturalism-and-animal-saving-0405149/comment-page-7#comments
The responses were loud and violent and drifted into a futile argument
In subjects that only "experts" found a connection between them to write,
Now that I return to the same topic and this time "relying on high standards"
Will we be attacked this time too?
And finally again and again and again:
It is appropriate that:
Instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population,
There will be control over the human population for the sake of the environment.
Shall we leave the claims to morality to the philosophers? Very puzzling. This is a lifestyle and not a diet.
Ownership and animals have feelings and rights, they are not a product!
In China there are those who say that a cow is just like a dog. Destroyers and everything that involves growing in Israel is an important matter. Happy New Year, a year of compassion. Become a better version of yourself?
In India, a subcontinent that houses one and a quarter billion people, food for the majority of the population is on the vegan border (most Hindus avoid eggs, drink milk, yogurt and eat only a little paneer cheese in their dishes), in Denmark (and in Europe in general) there are no forests left that can be burned, and cultivation The beef continues as it has been for hundreds of years. In South America, huge areas of forests are cleared to raise more cattle, and also for soybean fields - which is today the main food for cows raised in North America. Some of the areas in Argentina where cattle that roamed freely in the pampas used to be raised are today used for the intensive breeding of cattle confined in limited enclosures in North America, because on a soy diet the cattle fatten up and grow faster than consuming grass. Humanity has never consumed such large amounts of meat in the past, even in relation to the individual person. Throughout human history, when the amount of the human population was much smaller. Which means that the consumption of meat per capita increased in a greater proportion than the increase in the general population.
I did not defend what the article suggests, for example in the comparison between Paraguay and Denmark. Will Paraguay buy meat in Denmark? Or in Paraguay they will stop creating forests and make do with what they have...
It is also not great wisdom to present all kinds of data without giving possible solutions just to say that the vegans and vegetarians are wrong on the topic of environmental protection.
At the moment the situation is that there is a connection between going vegan and protecting the environment.