The definition I posted fits the way large parts the vegan community uses the word. Google “palm oil vegan” and you’ll find page after page of vegan groups and publications discussing whether palm oil is vegan, because to them “vegan” doesn’t mean plant-based. Another example is the impossible burger, which doesn’t contain animal products but was developed using animal testing, prompting a debate about whether its vegan.
I don’t care what people’s pop culture conception of veganism is, especially when (as Churba was) they’re critiquing the use of the word within the community.
Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet.
The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.
The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other recent research shows 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans. The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.
When comparing different methods of raising livestock:
The analysis also revealed a huge variability between different ways of producing the same food. For example, beef cattle raised on deforested land result in 12 times more greenhouse gases and use 50 times more land than those grazing rich natural pasture. But the comparison of beef with plant protein such as peas is stark, with even the lowest impact beef responsible for six times more greenhouse gases and 36 times more land.
Regarding maintaining current meat consumption use more ecologically-sound production: bear in mind that consumption varies wildly around the world. The only reason people in countries like the US and Australia (in some data the top two for per capita consumption) are able to eat so much beef and chicken is that people in other countries can’t. Just look at meat consumption vs GDP per capita:
Using the same FAO 2013 numbers, global meat consumption was 43.22 kg/capita/year, while the US was 115.13 and Australia was 116.23. If people in the US maintain their current consumption, and everyone else increases consumption to meet it, global meat consumption would rise by 166%. If we equalize consumption globally while maintaining the same total amount, US consumption would drop by 62%.
Yep. Whenever I watch Korean TV people are always VERY excited to be able to eat meat. It’s apparently expensive and a special treat. Seems like they still have plenty of it, and eat it a lot, but still treat it as if it is a rare treat worth getting excited over. Kind of like how we treat something like cake.
I just bought my first package of firm tofu and I’m gonna see if I can possibly start weaning myself off of fish.
Even just being a pescatarian is quite disruptive to my normal life. First meatless thanksgiving is going to be … interesting. I imagine it’ll be a bunch of awkward questions that I don’t wish to answer.
Unfortunately I can pretty much guarantee you’re right. My parents have been vegetarian for 30 years and they were still weird about me going vegan. Prepare for a lot of unsolicited nutritional advice.
While all consumption is unethical, choosing a more ethical option than this fundamentalist fast food chicken has resulted in a moderate positive improvement. This doesn’t mean it’s ok to start eating there! It means keep on spreading the word about how bad they are to pressure them to improve even more. Being loud about not eating there is working, so keep it up.
