How, objectively, are any of these examples any more or less unappetizing than drinking milk? It’s all a frame of mind. Another major myth here is that we’re the only species that seeks out milk beyond our infancy. Both cats and dogs will drink cow’s milk if it’s made available to them. I have even heard stories of wild predators, such as bears and coyotes, killing cows and ripping open their udders to consume the milk, but leaving the rest of the carcass untouched. I don’t know how true that is, but it makes sense that animals know that there is more than just meat to be gained from their prey. What is Lactose Intolerance?However, plant-based activists often claim that what makes dairy so unnatural for us is many consumer’s inability to digest it. Lactose intolerance occurs when a person’s levels of lactase, the enzyme that breaks down lactose, decrease as they age. Lactose itself isn’t harmful—it’s a valuable source of energy—but, when our digestive system is not able to break it down into its component parts, it causes severe stomach discomfort. Vegans are not wrong that this is a chronic problem. After infancy, about 65% of the world’s population have reduced ability to break down lactose. That’s an average, but it varies widely depending on ethnicity. Genetic Factors
A clue to why some ethnicities are more vulnerable than others may be found in how certain climates and civilization advances since the time the gene first popped up contributed to how frequently certain groups drank milk. In ecosystems that lend themselves to cattle ranching, and in the presence of refrigeration technology, lactase persistence (meaning, the lactase enzyme remained in the people’s digestive system beyond infancy) became more frequent. This is contrary to popular vegan phrases like, “meat eaters are on the wrong side of history,” or “plant-based is the future.” They seem to suggest that we will somehow evolve past our need for animal products. However, it seems that we have actually evolved to be able to consume more animal products over the past several centuries (which is a blink of an eye in evolutionary time!). Accordingly, even though social media magnifies plant-based rhetoric, making it seem widespread, consumption of all animal products has increased steadily over the past two decades all around the world. To get back to the topic, regardless of ancestry, anyone who struggles with lactose intolerance will tell you that it’s a major problem that impacts daily decisions and can be extremely painful when mishandled. So does that justify going dairy free? Not according to research. Scientific EvidenceBecause lactose intolerance is unfortunately so common, it has been well-researched. Out of this, a wealth of evidence tracing the association between avoidance of dairy as a result of lactose intolerance and weaker bones has emerged. Here is some of it: “One of the main concerns of health for individuals who are lactose intolerant is not getting enough essential nutrients due to complete avoidance of dairy foods…. The avoidance of all dairy products in patients with lactose intolerance is no longer recommended. Most people with lactose intolerance can tolerate up to 12–15 grams of lactose per day…. People with lactose intolerance should be encouraged to restrict rather than avoid lactose with the goal of including some dairy foods in the diet and to benefit from associated nutrients and their higher bioavailability…. Plant-based dairy substitutes, when consumed as main beverages, can have major health implications especially for young children.” Szilagyi, Andrew, and Norma Ishayek. “Lactose Intolerance, Dairy Avoidance, and Treatment Options.” Nutrients, vol. 10, no. 12, 2018, p. 1994., doi:10.3390/nu10121994.
“People with lactose intolerance should be encouraged to gradually increase their intake of milk—this causes changes in the intestine that permit higher milk intake. Milk is the main source of calcium in predominantly vegetarian communities, so ingestion of milk is important to avoid the increased risk of osteopenia, osteoporosis, and long bone fractures.” “Lactose Intolerance.” BMJ, vol. 334, no. 7608, June 2007, pp. 1331–1332., doi:10.1136/bmj.39252.524375.80. Living with Lactose IntoleranceThere are a lot of resources for those living with decreased lactase. The research quoted above suggests that consuming smaller amounts of dairy over frequent intervals will provide the recommended amount of calcium and vitamin D while avoiding digestive discomfort. Yogurt and cheese production ferments the dairy, breaking down most of the lactose before the product gets to the consumer, allowing those with sensitivities to have fewer, or often no, issues. Some milks have been processed to contain low or no lactose, removing the problem entirely. There are also over-the-counter lactase supplements patients can take that will put the lactase into the gut before consuming milk, amplifying the body’s ability to digest the sugar. Milk AllergiesMany will try to frame lactose intolerance as a “milk allergy,” but these are not the same thing. In the case of an allergy, the immune system responds to the proteins in milk as if they’re pathogens and attacks the body to try to kill the invaders. This can cause symptoms similar to other types of allergies, such as rashes, shortness of breath, or fainting. 2% of young children and infants have a milk allergy. This is very different from lactose intolerance, which is a reaction to a sugar, and can be managed with specialty products. The recommendation of still consuming milk for lactose intolerance should not carry over to patients with milk allergies. If you or your child are allergic to any product, don’t consume it! In Conclusion
0 Comments
Does it Cause Cancer? The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a subgroup of the World Health Organization (the WHO) made waves in 2015 when they declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen, or cancer-causing product. Despite this agency’s sciencey-sounding name, they are not researching cancer, but jumpstarting research collaborations between different governments through lobbying. And I’m not saying that’s delegitimate—only differentiating the materials they publish from the peer-reviewed literature encapsulating cancer research. In fact, the WHO themselves later denounced these claims. The European Union (EU), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) echo assurances of glyphosate’s safety. Read the research for yourself: “The IARC conclusion was not confirmed by the EU assessment or the recent joint WHO/FAO evaluation, both using additional evidence. The EU assessment did not identify a carcinogenicity hazard. Actual exposure levels are below these reference values and do not represent a public concern.” Tarazona, Jose V. “Glyphosate Toxicity and Carcinogenicity: a Review of the Scientific Basis of the European Union Assessment and Its Differences with IARC.” Archives of Toxicology, vol. 91, no. 8, 2017, pp. 2723–2743. “Following the review of the totality of the evidence, the Panels concluded that the data do not support IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is a ‘probable human carcinogen’ and, consistent with previous regulatory assessments, further concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.” Williams, Gary M, et al. “A Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate by Four Independent Expert Panels and Comparison to the IARC Assessment.” Critical Reviews in Toxicology, vol. 46, 2016, pp. 3–20. “A joint panel from the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations issued a summary evaluation of glyphosate in May 2016, concluding it poses no cancer risks as encountered in food and does not impact our genes.” Patocka, Jiri. “IS GLYPHOSATE REALLY HAZARDOUS FOR HUMAN HEALTH?” Military Medical Science Letters, vol. 87, no. 4, 2018, pp. 169–183. “Multiple lifetime feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any tumorigenic potential for glyphosate. Accordingly, it was concluded that glyphosate is noncarcinogenic…. Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.” Williams, Gary M, et al. “Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, vol. 31, 2000, pp. 117–165. Lawsuits
Application Rates Obviously, RoundUp in these studies was evaluated in the context of agricultural applications. If you drank the ingredient, of course you would become ill. Researchers, regulators, licensed applicators, and manufacturers all stress the importance of following label instructions. And not following herbicide label instructions is grounds for lawsuit. Contrary to the idea of megafarmers drenching their crops in chemicals, the amount of glyphosate that comes into contact with your food is unimpressive at best. The RoundUp formulation contains 41% glyphosate. At the general recommended rate of 32 fluid ounces per acre, 1 ounce of glyphosate covers over 3,300 square feet of a crop field—the size of a three bedroom home. To put it in perspective, that amount of land produces 45 pounds of soybeans (or 113 servings) and 67 pounds of corn (246 servings). All of that food only receives one ounce of glyphosate. Definitely still wash your fruits and veggies—but the idea that your produce is dripping in frankin-chemicals is a far cry from the truth. Glyphosate’s Role in Food Security Aside from the question of glyphosate’s link with cancer, it’s important to consider other impacts it may have on our health. With world populations rapidly expanding and so many going without reliable access to food, making crops more sustainable so that the land can provide for many years to come is arguably a more impactful measure of effects on health. Food security is a world-wide problem that impedes people in every single nation. However, in developing regions, glyphosate is an inexpensive ingredient that can bring increased yields to farmers in need. “Glyphosate is a global herbicide because of its versatility in controlling economically a very broad spectrum of weeds under varied agricultural, industrial, amenity and domestic situations. Overall it allows simple, cheap, flexible and effective weed control while possessing excellent environmental properties.” Baylis, Alan D. “Why Glyphosate Is a Global Herbicide: Strengths, Weaknesses and Prospects.” Pest Management Science, vol. 56, no. 4, 2000, pp. 299–308., doi:10.1002/(sici)1526-4998(200004)56:4<299::aid-ps144>3.0.co;2-k. Sustainability Benefits
“The effects of Roundup on soil fauna and functioning were minor and transient and no glyphosate remains were found in the soil at the end of the experiment.” Hagner, M., Mikola, J., Saloniemi, I. et al. Effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide on soil animal trophic groups and associated ecosystem functioning in a northern agricultural field. Sci Rep 9, 8540 (2019). By allowing soil microorganisms to function naturally, soil health is protected keeping the ground fertile for repetitive harvests. GMO Crops and Herbicides The discussion of glyphosate is often tied in with the organic versus GMO debate. Soybeans, in particular, have been criticized for being genetically engineered to resist glyphosate so that the herbicide only attacks the undesired weeds and not the crop to be harvested. Scientific attitudes are split on the impact this will have. Despite decades of research into this technology, questions of consumer safety are left unanswered. Furthermore, the weeds themselves, through natural selection, are becoming resistant to glyphosate, meaning RoundUp applications may not be effective anymore, forcing farmers to switch their efforts to pre-emergent pesticides. In other words, our ability to protect our food from herbicides is being outpaced by nature, rendering the herbicide ineffective before we can capitalize on its use. However, other groups have forecasted what phasing out glyphosate-resistant varieties would do to the world’s grain supply, and concluded that this technology is very necessary: “A ban on the use of glyphosate that resulted in GM HT (tolerant to glyphosate) no longer being grown will affect global crop production. Production of soybeans, corn, rapeseed, cotton and sugar beet will be affected directly in regions using GM HT seed technology. Production of soybeans will drop significantly in the US, Canada, and South America by 1.9% (1.6 million tonnes), 5.6% (0.2 million tonnes), and 17.1% (10.5 million tonnes) respectively.” Brookes, Graham, et al. “The Contribution of Glyphosate to Agriculture and Potential Impact of Restrictions on Use at the Global Level.” GM Crops & Food, vol. 8, no. 4, Feb. 2017, pp. 216–228., doi:10.1080/21645698.2017.1390637.
However, glyphosate-resistant soybeans are only a small piece of the pie. Genetic modification in food crops has many uses, including balancing nutrient levels, promoting growth with lower levels of fertilizer, or allowing plants to grow in climates that they wouldn’t be able to survive in ordinarily. “Woke” consumers who write off GMOs “because glyphosate” are ignorant to the wide range of uses genetic engineering has, most of which have nothing to do with herbicides. The truth is that pesticides are applied to all crops—yes, especially organic ones! The USDA permits hundreds of pesticides and growth supplements, both naturally-occurring and man-made, to be used on organic crops. And this is a great example of how genetic modification can resolve consumer fears. Crops created to grow stronger with fewer inputs through gene manipulation are more likely to outcompete with weeds on their own, without support from herbicides. In this respect, organic operations have to use more herbicides than conventional counterparts. Even though they’ll be able to tell their consumers that their tofu has never encountered the much-feared glyphosate, organic farmers are purchasing greater volumes of other types of pesticides. In Conclusion Like almost every other topic I frequent, the media and the science are water and oil on the topic of glyphosate. It’s almost as if well-researched pesticides that boost yields in developing communities don’t get clicks. The truth is that there are thousands of very qualified people working in international agencies that have signed their name on literature that exonerates glyphosate. We should always be stringent on pesticide applicators to make sure they’re held accountable to following label instructions. However, everyone wins when we use glyphosate. Farmers win because of lower prices. The public wins because there’s more food being produced. And future generations win because the land is preserved.
Look at the Whole List It’s true that the WHO classifies these substances as such. They also classify aloe vera, caffeine, including coffee and tea, leather (because of manufacturing processes), Tylenol, pickled vegetables, working late, magnetic fields (which we all live in being between earth’s poles), hot chocolate, drinking water disinfectants, fried foods, hair coloring products, working as a hair dresser, glass, saw dust, fluorescent lights, oral contraceptives, dry cleaning your clothes, and hundreds of other chemical-sounding things that, if we took the time to research the use of, we would learn that we come into contact with daily. It seems like some researcher somewhere has at some point in time linked every product we own or regularly consume to cancer. I do not for a second believe that we should take on a, “Well, we can’t avoid it,” mentality, because we can always look for healthier alternatives with anything we do. However, taking on a radical lifestyle just because the WHO classifies some meats as carcinogens completely ignores the hundreds of other products the organization’s list also incriminates. Can you imagine the temper tantrum that would ensue if I told a vegan to give up coffee and hair highlights because the WHO says those things cause cancer!? Of course vegans don’t follow the WHO’s advice for these products, and they are right not to. But this goes to show that they don’t really care about preventing cancer, or even the appearance of preventing cancer--only about taking scraps of half-truths to support their trendy, self-righteous lifestyle. 95% of them probably didn’t know what the WHO is until they were fed this easily digestible talking point. And half of them likely still don’t.
What they do need some checks against, however, is stepping into public advocacy as if they were any kind of research institution. They are not. Do not be confused by the conflicting title of the arm of the organization that actually published the list, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). They are not researching cancer, but jumpstarting research collaborations between different governments through lobbying. And I’m not saying that’s delegitimate--only differentiating the materials they publish from the peer-reviewed literature encapsulating cancer research. The American Chemistry Council’s Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research responded to the IARC’s list with a compilation of quotes from actual world health researchers that really laid into the WHO’s hubris. Among my favorites is a snippet from Geoffrey Kabat, cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine: “politicization of science is a serious danger….We need to continuously strive to distinguish good — that is, reproducible — science from politics and from policy.” My hope in saying all of this is not for the main point of this article to be “don’t trust the WHO,” but instead to investigate where these claims come from. Although I’ve taken way too long to articulate this point, I hope I’ve led you to this question: And What Does the Actual Research Say? “Processed meat was significantly related to the risk of the stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, lung, prostate, testis, kidney and bladdercancer and leukaemia.” Hu, Jinfu, et al. “Salt, Processed Meat and the Risk of Cancer.” European Journal of Cancer Prevention, vol. 20, no. 2, Mar. 2011, pp. 132–139. “Overall, there is no strong evidence to support the recent conclusion that red meat has a convincing role to play in colon cancer. A substantial amount of evidence supports the role of lean red meat as a positive moderator of lipid profiles with recent studies identifying it as a dietary source of the anti-inflammatory long chain (LC) n−3 PUFAs and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). In conclusion, moderate consumption of lean red meat as part of a balanced diet is unlikely to increase risk for CVD or colon cancer, but may positively influence nutrient intakes and fatty acid profiles, thereby impacting positively on long-term health.” Mcafee, Alison J., et al. “Red Meat Consumption: An Overview of the Risks and Benefits.” Meat Science, vol. 84, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1–13., doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.08.029.
“The possible absolute effects of red and processed meat consumption on cancer mortality and incidence are very small, and the certainty of evidence is low to very low.” Han et al. “Reduction of Red and Processed Meat Intake and Cancer Mortality and Incidence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.” Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 2019. To tie all of this together, there’s no denying that the research is mixed. However, through the years, researchers have cast doubt on the evidence that links processed meat to cancer and concluded that not all red meat should raise concerns, only red meat that is processed (which is admittedly a large proportion). But it’s pretty safe to say that we should approach processed meats with caution, and it’s not unreasonable to avoid them. If you do consume processed meats, make sure to accompany them with plenty of fiber, which acts as a digestive broom, cleaning out your intestines and lowering your rate of the type of cancer most referenced, colorectal cancer. The reason for this association is often believed to be the curing methods, which use chemicals high in sodium. Medical News Today published an article that called out the definition of processed meats for being too broad, asserting that it’s actually the nitrite content in the meats that raises cancer risks, not the generalized classification of being “processed.” But There Are Other Kinds of Meat, Too! This should sound like a fairly obvious statement, but, as I mentioned earlier, those who advocate for no animal products whatsoever have used the WHO’s carcinogen list as way too big of a stepping-stone toward their lifestyle. The contrary truth is that even the researchers that warn against processed meats don’t suggest an exclusion of animal products as a cure… but instead replacement with other animal products. “There were suggestive inverse associations of poultry intake with risk of total and all-CVD mortality among men, but not among women…. Among women, poultry intake was not significantly associated with total, all-cancer, or all-CVD mortality…. Poultry is often considered one of the healthier alternatives to red meat.” Takata Y, Shu X-O, Gao Y-T, Li H, Zhang X, Gao J, et al. (2013) Red Meat and Poultry Intakes and Risk of Total and Cause-Specific Mortality: Results from Cohort Studies of Chinese Adults in Shanghai. PLoS ONE 8(2): e56963. Abid, Zaynah, et al. “Meat, Dairy, and Cancer.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 100, July 2014. “Red and processed meat intake appears to be positively associated with risk of cancer of the colon and rectum, esophagus, liver, lung, and pancreas. However, this study provided little support for an association with other cancer sites. Current dietary guidelines recommend selecting meats that are lean, low-fat, or fat-free, thus promoting limited consumption of red and processed meats. Overall, the strongest risk factors for cancer in the US are smoking and obesity.” Genkinger JM, Koushik A (2007) Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk. PLoS Med 4(12): e345. “Red meat consumption may increase the risk of invasive breast cancer, whereas poultry consumption may be associated with reduced risk. Substituting poultry for red meat could reduce breast cancer risk.” Lo, Jamie J, et al. “Association between Meat Consumption and Risk of Breast Cancer: Findings from the Sister Study.” Cancer Epidemiology, Aug. 2019.
Why A Vegan Diet Would Hurt The Environment: Livestock Grain Ingredients Would Become Pollutants11/25/2018 The truth is that over 90% of all livestock grain ingredients are not fully produced crops, but byproducts from the processing of human foods. This unpopular fact is actually one of the many ways that vegans’ own arguments work against them, because, in reality, farm animals have the ability to turn products that would otherwise be waste into even more usable calories beyond just the edible parts of the crops. Although it’s a fiber and not a food product, cotton is the perfect example of this. Many byproducts of cotton production, including cottonseed, cottonseed oil, and cottonseed meal, are used extensively as livestock grain ingredients. Before cottonseed was used to feed farm animals, farmers did not know of any use for the surplus of seeds after their next crop was planted. For this reason, every year, thousands of tons of cottonseed would be burned, releasing unfathomable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, or thrown into rivers, intoxicating fish and clogging waterways. Sound drastic? Actually, making use of cotton byproducts in livestock grain is only a very small piece of the very big picture. A 2017 study put some exact numbers on this sustainability benefit of farm animal production: “Livestock recycle more than 43.2 × 10^9 kg of human-inedible food and fiber processing byproducts, converting them into human-edible food, pet food, industrial products, and 4 × 109 kg of N fertilizer.” White, Robin R, and Mary Beth Hall. “Nutritional and Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Removing.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 13 Nov. 2017.
“Many consumers are unaware of the advantages of livestock productivity gains conferred by modern practices, by-product feeds, and use of technology. The gains made by ‘recycling’ safe, yet otherwise valueless, by-products from human food and fiber production lessen competition between humans and animals for crops that can equally be used for feed or food, maximize land use efficiency, and decrease the environmental impact of food production.”
Capper, Jude L, et al. “Animal Feed vs Human Food: Challenges and Opportunities in Sustaining Animal Agriculture Toward 2050.” CAST Issue Paper, no. 53, Sept. 2013. Some farmers have expressed concerns that these byproducts do not yield the same results as high-energy corn or soy. However, the science does corroborate that: “Replacing cereals and soybean meal with human-inedible by-products in a high-quality forage diet to dairy cows increased net food protein production substantially without lowering milk production.” Karlsson, Johanna, et al. “Replacing Human-Edible Feed Ingredients with by-Products Increases Net Food Production Efficiency in Dairy Cows.” Elsevier Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 101, no. 8, Aug. 2018. Science Direct. So ya, farm animals do eat a lot. But that’s not human food their depleting. They’re actually removing one of our world’s most hazardous environmental disturbances. Why A Vegan Diet Would Hurt The Environment: We Would Need To Replace More Than Just Food11/11/2018
However, what they fail to acknowledge is that a potato is just a potato. But right alongside those beef calories is leather, bonemeal, blood, hair, fat, milk, fertilizer, and a whole slew of other byproducts that you would have to farm dozens of other types of crops to replace. Here are some fun graphics from Farm Credit Knowledge Center that start to put this in perspective… So no, there really is no such thing as a vegan who never ever uses a product from an animal. Many plant-based advocates acknowledge this by saying they’re just trying to cause “the least harm possible” by cutting out the animal products where they can. However, when you do the math, the environmental harm caused by a single farm animal that you can get dozens of products from is extremely dwarfed by the production of many many crop species needed to produce each one of those products. Let’s look at an example. Cotton is a really good base point because it’s water requirement falls right in the middle of most food crop irrigation ranges. The world average amount of water needed to produce one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of cotton is 10,000 liters (2,600 gallons). To compare this with cattle (I’m working up to leather, which cotton would reasonably replace), one beef steer (I’m going to use Angus- one of the most common beef breeds in America) drinks 1.5 gallons of water per 100 pounds of body weight per day. Here’s a breakdown of how I’m totalling the amount of water they’ll drink in their lifetime of thirty months (an average):
“Intensification of agriculture by use of high-yielding crop varieties, fertilization, irrigation, and pesticides has contributed substantially to the tremendous increases in food production over the past 50 years. Land conversion and intensification, however, also alter the biotic interactions and patterns of resource availability in ecosystems.” Matson, PA, et al. “Agricultural Intensification and Ecosystem Properties.” Research Gate, ScienceMag, 15 Apr. 2009. “Global croplands have expanded in recent decades, accompanied by large increases in energy, water, and fertilizer consumption, along with considerable losses of biodiversity. Such changes in land use have enabled humans to appropriate an increasing share of the planet's resources, but they also potentially undermine the capacity of ecosystems to sustain food production, maintain freshwater and forest resources, regulate climate and air quality, and ameliorate infectious diseases.” Foley, J A, et al. “Global Consequences of Land Use.” Science (New York, N.Y.)., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 22 July 2005, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16040698. “Changes in agricultural practices and harvesting methods can have important effects on food sources of migratory birds and other wildlife dependent on agricultural lands.” Ward, Janice R, et al. “Investigating the Environmental Effects of Agriculture Practices on Natural Resources.” PUBS USGS, US Department of the Interior, 2007. The flip-side of this, luckily, is that forage cultivation (upkeeping the types of grasses and legumes that livestock like to eat in pastures) actually promotes wildlife populations and has a lot of environmental benefits. Here’s some research on that:
“Forages are fuel for animals, but they give back to the earth many beneficial things. A corn crop requires more nitrogen, herbicides, and pesticides than forages and depletes and erodes the soil to yield its fruit once a year. Forages can give repeated harvests each year, give nitrogen back to the soil, prevent erosion, filter water and clean the air, absorb impurities, and be used for medicines and biofuels.”
“Discuss the Environmental Benefits of Forages.” Forage Information System, Oregon State University, 11Jan.2016, forages.oregonstate.edu/nfgc/eo/onlineforagecurriculum/instructormaterials/availabletopics/usforages/benefits. “The environmental benefits of well managed pasture, include reduced soil erosion; improved air and water quality; better plant diversity, vigor and production; and improved fish and wildlife habitat.” Hendershot, Robert. “Environmental Benefits of Improved Grazing Management.”Environmental Benefits of Improved Grazing Management - Pasture, University of Illinois Board of Trustees, 7 May 2004, livestocktrail.illinois.edu/pasturenet/paperDisplay.cfm?ContentID=6618. So why is this a reason not to go vegan? By eating animal products, especially beef, lamb, mutton, or milk, you are supporting the farmers that cultivate forages, saving wildlife animals. These are very often plants native to the area they’re planted in, and they reduce erosion which prevents the deposit of sediment or water pollutants (like sewage and trash… ew!) that could detract from the water quality or health of aquatic populations in streams, rivers, and eventually even the ocean! This is not to say that we should cut plant foods out of our diet or that crop producers are doing anything wrong- an omnivorous diet will always be our healthiest bet, and vegetable and grain farmers have made many sustainability improvements. Instead, it's important for consumers to realize that the cultivation of crops and livestock, simultaneously, can cancel out environmental risks of each other.
My point in that off-the-wall example: all of the subjects in school are interdependent on each other, and agriculture is no different. The vegan movement has attempted to popularize the idea that an agricultural system devoid of livestock production is the most sustainable option, but the truth is that crop production without farm animals would be very, very harmful to the environment. Specifically, livestock manure is one of the most eco-friendly fertilizers. In fact, it has become the leading option for organic producers. Here’s some science: “Fertility in the organic system depended on animal manure applications and winter cover crops; the two conventional systems received synthetic fertilizer inputs… After 4 yr, soils in the organic and low-input systems had higher soil organic C, soluble P, exchangeable K, and pH.” Clark, M Sean, et al. “Changes in Soil Chemical Properties Resulting from Organic and Low-Input Farming Practices.” AGRONOMY JOURNAL, vol. 90, doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720.figure2f. “A key resource in this respect is animal manure. Such manure can increase and maintain soil fertility by providing N, P, K, S, Ca, Mg, Na and other trace elements such as Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn. It also improves the pH of acid soils and calcareous soils, increases soil organic matter content and cation exchange capacity, improves soil aggregate stability, soil macro-structure, infiltration, water holding capacity and erosion resistance. However, animal manure cannot meet crop nutrient demand over large areas, because of the limited quantities available and the relatively low nutrient content of the materials. The combined use of animal manure and mineral fertilizers is, therefore, a promising alternative strategy.” Bayu, W., et al. “The Role of Animal Manure in Sustainable Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review.” Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, vol. 25, no. 2, 2005, pp. 113–136., doi:10.1300/j064v25n02_09. “Recycling of livestock manure in agroecosystems to partially substitute synthetic fertilizer nitrogen (N) input is recommended to alleviate the environmental degradation associated with synthetic N fertilization, which may also affect food security and soil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Substituting livestock manure for synthetic N fertilizer (with equivalent N rate) significantly increased crop yield by 4.4% and significantly decreased Nr losses via NH3 emission by 26.8%, N leaching by 28.9% and N runoff by 26.2%. These results suggest that recycling of livestock manure in agroecosystems improves crop productivity, reduces Nr pollution and increases SOC storage. To attenuate the enhanced carbon source in paddy field, appropriate livestock manure management practices should be adopted.” Xia, Longlong, et al. “How Does Recycling of Livestock Manure in Agroecosystems Affect Crop Productivity, Reactive Nitrogen Losses, and Soil Carbon Balance?” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 51, no. 13, 2017, pp. 7450–7457., doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b06470.
Another big example of how livestock production can make growing crops more sustainable is when farmers release cattle, sheep, or horses onto crop fields outside of their growing season. Not only does this distribute manure onto the land straight from the source, but animals tromping over the ground disturbs the soil, which improves organic matter, root strength, and water retention, while decreasing the chances of harmful nutrient runoff. As I discussed in a previous installment to this series, allowing livestock to inhabit land reduces the risks of wildfires.
All-in-all, crop production is most sustainable and abundant when it’s supplemented with livestock production. Without farm animals, the fruit and veggie aisle would be very lacking, and that is why the term, “animal agriculture” is misleading. Farm animals are integral to many other sectors of ag, especially the ones prefered by plant-based activists.
The Research On This Topic A 2015 study conducted by researchers at the Italian University of Padova considered just that, and found conclusions that do not look good for vegans. Here’s what they had to say: “The choice between animal and vegetarian diets may have a relevant environmental impact. In such comparisons however, an often neglected issue is the nutritional value of foods. Previous estimates of nutrients’ environmental footprint had predominantly been based on either food raw weight or caloric content, not in respect to human requirements.” They go on to explain that the most limiting nutrient is protein, and that they were defining sustainability in terms of land usage and greenhouse gas emissions. Show Me The Data
The yellow lines are the amount of land needed or greenhouse gases released to produce the amount of protein, regardless of the types of amino acids that protein was composed of, we require each day. The green lines, however, are the amount of land needed or greenhouse gases released to produce our daily requirement of each individual amino acid. In other words, the green line is how much of each product we actually would have to eat to stay healthy.
Comparing This Study to Others Here’s what another study had to say: “When nutritional adequacy was evaluated by using least-cost diets produced from foods available, more nutrient deficiencies, a greater excess of energy, and a need to consume a greater amount of food solids were encountered in plants-only diets. In the simulated system with no animals, estimated agricultural GHG decreased (28%), but did not fully counterbalance the animal contribution of GHG (49% in this model). This assessment suggests that removing animals from US agriculture would reduce agricultural GHG emissions, but would also create a food supply incapable of supporting the US population’s nutritional requirements.” White, Robin R, and Mary Beth Hall. “Nutritional and Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Removing.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 13 Nov. 2017. I think all of this goes to show how much damage cherry picking can do. Plant-based public interest groups profit off of claims about a vegan diet being more sustainable. However, when you look at the entirety of the data, you see that trying to meet your nutrient requirements on a plant-based diet causes the earth incredible amounts of unnecessary harm. Both of these studies conclusions line up pretty well with the Elementa study presented in my last post. If you’ll recall, that study calculated how much food could be produced to fit ten different types of diets with the land resources available in the United States. That study found that the production model that would create the greatest amount of food was one composed of dairy and plants. A diet high in plants and dairy, moderate in other animal products, and low in meat, was second, and a vegan, or entirely plant-based diet, scored near the bottom! To sum up the conclusions of this University of Padova study, if you want your diet to meet your bodies needs and still be environmentally-friendly, consume high amounts of chicken meat, soybeans, wheat, corn, and potatoes. Incorporate moderate amounts of eggs, dairy, and pork, and steer clear of beef, sea bass, beans, peas, rice, and cauliflower. Here’s the citation for this University of Padova study: Tessari, P. et al. Essential amino acids: master regulators of nutrition and environmental footprint? Sci. Rep. 6, 26074; doi: 10.1038/srep26074 (2016). "Natural Resources Conservation Service." Grazing Lands | NRCS. USDA, Nov. 1995. Web. 30 June 2017. “Crop Production and Natural Resource Use.” FAO, FAO, www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e06.htm. Elementa’s Agroecological Systems Study Really, the question all agriculturalists are trying to answer is how to produce the maximum amount of food with the resources the earth provides. Vegans boast that less room is used to grow a potato than to grow a cow, and this is definitely true. So wouldn’t the logic follow that we get more food out of the land when we plant crops instead of maintaining pastureland? This conclusion is too black and white because it doesn’t take into consideration that we can’t grow crops on most land. A study published by Elementa Science of Anthropocene did take this fact into consideration, and found that the diet that actually uses the least amount of land is a lacto-vegetarian diet, or one that incorporates plants and dairy. Here’s what the researchers had to say: “Carrying capacity was generally higher for scenarios with less meat and highest for the lacto-vegetarian diet. However, the carrying capacity of the vegan diet was lower than two of the healthy omnivore diet scenarios. Sensitivity analysis showed that carrying capacity estimates were highly influenced by starting assumptions about the proportion of cropland available for cultivated cropping.” Did you hear that? A diet with meat in it feeds more people on the same amount of land than a diet of only crops. And a plant-based diet that incorporates dairy uses the least amount of land. In other words, we can’t rely only on the small amount of crop-sustaining land to feed the world. We would need to produce more food on a finite amount of ground. This removes the options of crop rotation, which is extremely beneficial, and forces producers into multi-cropping, or using the same piece of land for multiple types of crops, one right after the other, never giving the ground a break in between. In the long run, this strips the soil of its nutrients and structure, diminishing the quality of future harvests.
Beyond just nurturing better food for humans, cover crops also help the living environment surrounding them. Intensive crop production reduces biodiversity of surrounding native plant species, and all of the field activities and chemical applications take a toll on wildlife populations. Cover crops give the land an opportunity to recover from all this. Giving the land this “time off” is one of the most effective ways of helping the surrounding wildlife populations. What’s the point? In the crop-only model that plant-based activists claim would be more environmentally-friendly, cover crops wouldn’t be an option because, to replace the calories we get from livestock, we’d need to double the use of crop land by using it all year round to constantly produce grains we can eat. Inedible cover crops would be abandoned because they don’t directly grow our food supply. Planting alternative, energy-draining crops back-to-back would stretch the soil’s growing ability thin, jeopardizing harvests of the future. Livestock Grazing Is The Answer The obvious solution is to utilize farm animals to produce food outside of these select few areas that are able to sustain crops. Reasons that crops can’t be grown in these regions include a rocky ground, harsh climate, steep topography, or the soil just not having the right properties. What’s cool is that farm animals have the ability to graze the native grasses on these lands-- ground that has no other use by humans, and turn it into usable calories. By having this alternative source of calories, less pressure is placed on the land that can sustain crops, allowing farmers to give it breaks between harvests. Barren Land Would Be Dangerous A point that I always try to drive home while on this issue is what would happen to the non-crop-sustaining land if there were no livestock animals to graze it. A vast majority of the human populations prefer to live in close proximity to coastlines where the climate is temperate, whereas pasturelands are typically located inland. This means that, if livestock were removed from these lands, the chances of them becoming residential are not likely. Instead, these lands would sit empty and ungrazed. The native grasses, which evolved to be “conditioned” by grazing ruminants, would grow rank. This means their photosynthesis cycles would be disrupted, and they would quit fixing carbon, no longer removing the massive amounts of greenhouse gases that they do now. Grassland prairies stretch hundreds upon hundreds of miles and can remove tons and tons of CO2 before it reaches the ozone layer. However, with no livestock, the grasses would not do this anymore, and more damage would be done to the atmosphere.
Diamond, Joel M, et al. “Effects of Targeted Cattle Grazing on Fire Behavior of Cheatgrass-Dominated Rangeland in the Northern Great Basin, USA.” International Journal of Wildland Fire, vol. 18, 2009, pp. 944–950.
Menke, John W. “GRAZING AND FIRE MANAGEMENT FOR NATIVE PERENNIAL GRASS RESTORATION IN CALIFORNIA GRASSLANDS .” A Journal of the California Native Plant Society, vol. 20, no. 2, 1992. Strand, Eva K, et al. “Livestock Grazing Effects on Fuel Loads for Wildland Fire in Sagebrush Dominated Ecosystems.” Journal of Rangeland Applications, vol. 1, 2014.
However, a point that I’ve kind of missed in all of this is the fact that our world could not sustain a vegan diet. From the beginning of time, both plants and animals have inhabited almost all parts of the earth. Although the agricultural systems needed to keep pace with the rapidly growing human populations are undeniably an extreme model, it makes sense that a crop and livestock model would fit the natural world’s vision closer than one devoid of animals. As usual, I don’t make such claims without some background research to support it. When you sit down to actually read the scholarly literature surrounding the topic, instead of saving the world by binging Netflix, you realize that the data collected on the topic paints a very disturbing picture of an entirely crop-based agricultural system. The truth is that farmers are the most passionate environmentalists you’ll ever meet. The well-being of the land is not just some charity case to them. It is their livelihood, and the livelihood of their children. And they understand that things like going out and waving signs at the White House (that’s wasting paper, man!) or funding expensive documentaries to pay for clearing land for a tennis court in their backyard (@LeoDiCaprio) does Mother Earth no good. Farmers’ environmental work is much more hands-on. Whether it’s using biotechnology to get the most out of their soil with fewer resources, using satellite technology and large equipment that reduces their amount of passes (and thus fuel), or using animal genetics and nutrition to make faster growing animals that consume less feed, farmers are miracle workers that are feeding humanity and doing it in the most eco-friendly way possible.
We have no better use for plant food-processing byproducts than livestock grain ingredients, so taking away farm animals would make them into pollutants |