Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts - Nature Food
www.nature.com
Modelled estimates of the environmental impact of dietary choices often fail to reflect true dietary practice. This study links a dietary dataset from 55,000 UK consumers with food-level data on GHG emissions, land use, water use, eutrophication and biodiversity to compare the environmental burden of different levels of meat consumption.

All environmental indicators showed a positive association with amounts of animal-based food consumed. Dietary impacts of vegans were 25.1% (95% uncertainty interval, 15.1–37.0%) of high meat-eaters (≥100 g total meat consumed per day) for greenhouse gas emissions, 25.1% (7.1–44.5%) for land use, 46.4% (21.0–81.0%) for water use, 27.0% (19.4–40.4%) for eutrophication and 34.3% (12.0–65.3%) for biodiversity. At least 30% differences were found between low and high meat-eaters for most indicators. Despite substantial variation due to where and how food is produced, the relationship between environmental impact and animal-based food consumption is clear and should prompt the reduction of the latter.

  • Glitch@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    I would suggest that eating meat !== burning down forest land. That’s a policy and regulation issue that could be corrected or severely reduced. It’s the policy makers, paid out by industry lobbies, who allow for such absurdity

      • Glitch@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        From the cheapest lots available. Prices are dictated or influenced by legislation. If we can pay farmers to NOT grow corn, we can pay farmers to use specific kinds of lands, revitalize dying landscapes, and support natural ecosystems.