News
Top blogs
Podcast
Topics
Events“If you want to save the world, veganism isn’t the answer”
, medical review by Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD
in Environment / Animal protection, Food industry 
The vegan diet has probably never been more popular than it is today. In a recent The Guardian article, farmer and author Isabella Tree discusses the effect of influential documentaries such as What the Health and Cowspiracy. These documentaries have thrown a spotlight on the meat and dairy industries, and convinced many people that cutting meat and dairy out of their diet equals a big favor to the planet and the environment.
However, what these documentaries fail to portray are the environmental consequences of the vegan diet. So, what exactly happens to our environment when switching entirely to plant-based foods?
If more people continue to turn to veganism, there will obviously be a need for more plants and less meat. This may lead to soil degradation, and soil loss is a major issue facing the world today, as Isabella Tree explains:
Our ecology evolved with large herbivores – with free-roaming herds of aurochs (the ancestral cow), tarpan (the original horse), elk, bear, bison, red deer, roe deer, wild boar and millions of beavers. They are species whose interactions with the environment sustain and promote life. Using herbivores as part of the farming cycle can go a long way towards making agriculture sustainable.
Somewhere along the way in many media storms, we have forgotten what we actually already know. In order to grow nutritious vegetables, the soil where they grow needs to be nutrient rich, and today, most are not.
The solution that Isabella Tree suggests? Back to basics. We should be encouraging sustainable meat and dairy production based on traditional rotational systems, permanent pasture and conservation grazing. We need to restore our soils by letting animals graze the earth. The way they graze, puddle and trample stimulates vegetation in different ways, creating habitats for small mammals and birds. When we don’t feed the animals antibiotics and other drugs, their dung feeds the soil ecosystem – a vital process of ecosystem restoration where nutrients and structure are returned to the soil.
The Guardian: If you want to save the world, veganism isn’t the answer
Earlier
‘Eat less meat’ fails to recognize that all meat is not created equal
‘What the Health’ review: health claims backed by no solid evidence
Why the fear of meat?
Where does the fear of meat come from originally? Learn more in our interview with Nina Teicholz:
75 comments
Top comments
All comments
It looks written by a 12 years old. How would be viable the solution proposed for a population of over 7 billion people, from a logistical point of view? How wide should be the area for the "grazing", does the author even know that the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest is due to animal agriculture, or that over 50% of greenhouse emissions are produced from the meat industry? The cereals that go into feeding the cattle in the US in a year could feed a population of 800 million persons. And the energy, water used for the production of a kg of meat?
The site is called diet doctor and the article does not even consider the health benefits of a vegan diet versus an animal based one. I suggest you check the latest medical reserach on the topic
Even as propaganda, it comes out as being very poor quality. ..
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/
If every animal were allowed to graze the way Allan Savoury finds, with current meat consumption habits, we would have to relocate out cities into the oceans (not likely but you get the point).
Only three options: keep up current factory farming or cut down significantly on your beef jerky and eat humanely grazed, or just stop eating meat and leave a future for our kids.
We encourage discussions, positive and negative feedback. But please don't use insults in your comments. Such comments will be removed.
No doubt having free range animals is an improvement over industrial farming but it's only the best solution if you have to choose between those two options. If you add permaculture and agroforestry into the mix the outcome will be completely different. Animals will always be less resource efficient than growing crops in a more natural way.
As for health benefits, I took out meat, dairy, eggs from my diet because of health issues almost a year ago. Weight improved, cholesterol improved, inflammation disappeared, etc etc if you take some vitamin B12 supplement and eat balanced there is no need whatsoever for eating animal products. (Still visit zoos, use leather, eat honey, have pets and so on so I hardly qualify as a vegan in case someone was wondering if I'm some animal rights activist)
I do grow my own veggies and live in an area known for veggies year round. Never have I seen a plant want to be dug up and eaten. Plants are as a live as any animal and maybe more determined to live. Ever see plants growing through cracks in concrete? East plants you are killing.
Incidentally, I have been married to a farmer for 40 years and agree entirely with the article.
There is one animal that has become too numerous and is in fact bad for the planet - humankind. Many industrial farming practices are also bad for the environment, like antibiotics, modified organisms, pesticides & herbicides etc. So don't get me wrong - I personally don't care what kind of diet anyone wants to follow.
But claiming that animals are bad for the environment is forgetting many things, including how many seeds / plants only propagate in the dung of the animals or droppings of birds who eat the fruit for instance, or the fuel consumption of our big hulking 4x4 SUVs, Trucks or other Fossil Fuel motivated transport.
Here's Alan Savoury's brilliant insight on how herbivores benefit our planet:
https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deser...
And here's a story about the benefits of re-introducing Wolves in the Yellowstone Park:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140128-how-wolves-saved-a-famous-park