Claim: And when those animals are grass fed? That number is more like 97%. Most importantly, much of that water is actually returned to the Earth.

Source:

https://www.sacredcow.info/blog/beef-is-not-a-water-hog#%3A%7E%3Atext=Beef+production+is+able+to%2Ca+calf+once+a+year

“In a grass-finished beef operation, the amount of green water used is closer to 98% because the cattle are raised exclusively on pasture.”

Source:

https://waterfootprint.org/resources/Report-48-WaterFootprint-AnimalProducts-Vol1.pdf

“In the grazing system, over 97% of the water footprint related to feed comes from grazing and fodder crops and the water footprint is dominantly (94%) green.”

Claim: In fact, these plant-based foods require far more water and provide nowhere near the nutritional profile.

Source:

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/10/1518

“However, plant-based diets have low contents of essential micronutrients, such as iron, zinc, vitamin B-12, vitamin D, omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids, calcium, and iodine, and such micronutrient deficiencies lead to the risk of malnutrition. People who follow vegan diets usually are required to take daily supplements of some of these nutrients because the averages of these nutrients are insufficient in their diets. Although some sources of plants can compensate for the required amounts of nutrients, vegans need to consume 20% more food than non-vegans (omnivore) to arrive at the recommended daily doses of the above-mentioned nutrients [60].

“However, crop-only production and an exclusively vegan diet may lead to the loss of important plant and animal genetic materials, increase pressure on land and water resources, and exacerbate problems with agricultural crop residues.”

“the conversion of large forests into arable lands, particularly into cash-crop plantations, has a direct influence on vegetation and local climate through its control of water and energy fluxes.”

Claim: It takes an average of 2,000 Liters of water (528 gallons) to produce 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of avocados. And every time you throw away one of those over-ripe avocados, it’s like running your shower for one hour.

Source: https://www.treehugger.com/avocado-chile-petorca-united-kingdom-village-drought-4868652

“the average American shower uses 2.1 gallons of water per minute. Throwing away one avocado would be like letting the shower run for more than an hour with no one in it.”

Source:https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/10/avocado-illegal-deforestation-mexico-pine-forests

“Two thousand litres of water are needed to produce just one kilo of avocados – “

Claim: There is also a misconception that livestock are consuming the majority of our grains – 50% in the US according to some estimates, and around 80% globally.

Source: https://coloradonewsline.com/2022/06/29/crops-people-animals-life-or-death/#%3A%7E%3Atext=In+the+US+alone%2C+more%2Cthe+human+population+on+Earth

“In the US alone, more than 50% of grain is fed to farmed animals rather than people (the world’s cattle consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people — again more than the human population on Earth).”

Source:

https://sentientmedia.org/food-over-feed-war-in-ukraine-highlights-need-for-dietary-change/

“According to a study about food security, livestock producers used 61 percent of global corn and 20 percent of wheat between 2016 and 2018. In addition to grain, livestock farmers feed around 80 percent of global soy to farmed animals, another crop that humans could eat directly.”

Claim: An article in The Economist said “die-hard leaf eaters can claim to have knocked 85% off their carbon footprint.” (“How Much Would Giving up Meat Help the Environment?” 2019)

Source: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/11/15/how-much-would-giving-up-meat-help-the-environment?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Fhowmuchwouldgivingupmeathelptheenvironmentdailychart

Claim: The average emission per person per year related to diet is just 16% …

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Plant-Based-eating-plants-only-improve/dp/1408717441

Claim: Research has also shown when we adjust these models to consider necessary nutrients, emissions are similar between plant & animal foods.

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26074#Sec13

The findings suggest that when adjusting for essential nutrient content, the environmental impacts of animal and plant-based foods are more comparable than commonly perceived.

“The main conclusion of the study is that, under this perspective, the theoretical advantage of producing vegetal rather than animal proteins, is either markedly blunted, abolished or even reverted, with the notable exceptions of soybeans (still requiring ≈85% less land and producing ≈90% less GHGE, than those associated to beef meat).”

Claim: And the environmental cost of plant-based nutrients increases when you consider their reduced bioavailability and the emissions of animal foods can be reduced by up to 14% by eating nose to tail.

Source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b06079

“A diet to a higher amount of offal with less needs to be thrown away (S8) showed the second largest reduction potential or 14% reduction of the original GHG emissions..”

Source: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/12/1841

“In spite of the higher iron content in vegan diets, typically vegetarians have lower serum ferritin (iron stores) than meat-eaters, likely due to the reduced bioavailability of the type of iron found in plants,”

A review in Nutrients highlights that while plant-based diets can improve health and environmental sustainability, they may require careful planning to meet micronutrient needs due to lower bioavailability of certain nutrients. This could potentially lead to increased consumption of plant foods to meet nutritional requirements, thereby raising environmental impacts

Claim: Certain studies have found processed foods have a higher carbon footprint (Ridoutt et al., 2020, #) (da Silva & et. al., 2021),

Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00254-0/fulltext

“Between 1987–88 and 2017–18, diet-related GHGE increased by 21% (from 1538·6 g CO2 equivalent [CO2e] per 1000 kcal [95% CI 1473·3–1604·0] to 1866·0 g CO2e per 1000 kcal [1788·0–1944·0]; ptrend<0·0001), diet-related water footprint increased by 22% (from 1447·2 L/1000 kcal [95% CI 1400·7–1493·8] to 1769·1 L/1000 kcal [1714·5–1823·7]; ptrend<0·0001), and diet-related ecological footprint increased by 17% (from 9·69 m2/1000 kcal [95% CI 9·33–10·05] to 11·36 m2/1000 kcal [10·91–11·81]; ptrend<0·0001).”

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362165569_A_conceptual_framework_for_understanding_the_environmental_impacts_of_ultra-processed_foods_and_implications_for_sustainable_food_systems

Ultra-Processed Foods and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A review highlighted that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, with items like processed meats, burgers, and pizza contributing the most.

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38173129/

Carbon Footprint of Ultra-Processed Food Purchases: Research published in Public Health Nutrition found that the highest quintile of ultra-processed food purchases was associated with a 14.4% increase in carbon footprint compared to the lowest quintile

Claim: …and that healthful diets containing meat and plants may actually be the most eco-friendly when considering worldwide populations (Buxton, 2022) (Peters et al., 2016).

Source: https://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article/doi/10.12952/journal.elementa.000116/112904/Carrying-capacity-of-U-S-agricultural-land-Ten

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-023-00239-6

A study published in The Lancet Planetary Health introduced the concept of the "Planetary Health Diet," which emphasizes a balance of plant-based foods with modest amounts of animal-based products. This diet aims to promote health and environmental sustainability. The researchers suggest that such a diet could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and land use compared to current dietary patterns, while still providing adequate nutrition.

Claim: The soy that makes up much of the plant-based market - 95% is genetically modified and sprayed with pesticides that degrade environmental health (USDA ERS, 2023) (Non GMO Project, 2023).

Source: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-united-states/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption/

“Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops, which tolerate potent herbicides (such as glyphosate, glufosinate, and dicamba), provide farmers with a broad variety of options for effective weed control. Based on USDA survey data, the percent of domestic soybean acres planted with HT seeds rose from 17 percent in 1997 to 68 percent in 2001, before plateauing at 94 percent in 2014. In 2024, HT soybean acreage reached its highest adoption at 96 percent. HT cotton acreage expanded from approximately 10 percent in 1997 to 56 percent in 2001, before reaching a high of 95 percent in 2019. “

Source: https://www.nongmoproject.org/blog/the-gmo-high-risk-list-soybeans/

“Roughly 95% of soy grown in the United States is genetically engineered to withstand weedkillers, a GMO trait known as herbicide tolerance. The first herbicide-tolerant GMO soy was created by inserting DNA from a glyphosate-resistant bacteria into the soy plant so farmers could apply weedkillers to their fields without damaging their cash crop.”