Is Veganism truly more Green and Ethical ?
By Viyona Mohan
Veganism is defined as the overall eating practice of not consuming anything that is derived from animals. It can also be extended to avoiding consumption of other non-food produce as well such as clothing if they exploit animals (VEGANISM | Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary, n.d.). However, for the purpose of this article, the more basic definition concerning only food consumption will be considered. A very common reason for adopting veganism, besides health, is that it is considered to be a more environmentally sustainable and ethical lifestyle choice. There are several reasons that are cited to support this claim, however the two most commonly cited claims are the ethical claim and the sustainability claim (Bhattacharyya, 2019). The ethical claim is that veganism does not support the unethical treatment of animals in the livestock industry. This includes cruelty in methods of breeding and maintenance in large poultry factories. According to data by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), the overall estimate of egg laying hens is 404,583,000, out of which 2,483,019,000 are raised specifically for meat and a large majority of these are raised in factories (Hiranandani, 2019). The environment claim comes from the large amount of methane that is released into the atmosphere as well as the large scale land and water pollution resulting from beef production.
However, there is need to question the degree of truth behind these claims, particularly since the last few decades have seen an ever increasing number of vegan converts. While at the forefront, both claims of ethics and environment may seem to be true, there is also a lot of evidence that actually supports the opposite. Studies have shown that plant sourced foods are no more ethically better as compared to the meat industry. It is integral to understand the complete nature of the issues concerning our food choices, especially if one is making a lifestyle shift in the hopes the world is becoming better because of it. The purpose of this article is to explore and analyse three of the many arguments that contradict the idea that veganism is truly a more ethical and green eating lifestyle.
The first argument against veganism is that it promotes consumption of food produce that is ‘exotic’ or non-native that is often sourced from countries in the global south with poor compliance of ethical practices (Gray 2020). Many of the plant products sold in the United States, where veganism has been gaining significant popularity, are sources from farmlands with highly underpaid farmers. Additionally, some of the more exotic produce is sourced from countries in Latin America where very poor labour practices are followed and exploitation is very common. An example of this is the practice of harvesting cashews is Latin American countries: when harvesting cashews from hard shell encasement, the caustic oil in between severely burns the skin of the hands of those handling it.
The second argument is that this consumption and high level production of these “trendy” food items have a severe impact on the environment as well. Some of these items include blueberries, strawberries, avocados, nuts, cocoa powder etc. Avocados require 209 litres per day for growth, and therefore the large scale increase in avocado farm land has resulted in a lot of water stress issues in parts of Mexico, Chile, California and Spain. Similarly, a lot of deforestation is currently happening in parts of the Amazon, West Africa and SouthEast Asia for the cultivation of cocoa (Gray 2020). The carbon footprint of 1 kg of cocoa is 11.2 kg of CO2 and that of 1 kg of cocoa powder is 33.6 kg of CO2. Almonds and cashew production have also put a lot of stress on water resources. Also, a lot of meat substitutes are made from certain species of fungi or mycoprotein. One study found that the carbon footprint of the production of mycoprotein was 5.55–6.15kg CO2/kg (Gray 2020). The damage to the environment is also significant from the large scale use of fertilizers in the production of mycoprotein. The additional processing that uses this mycoprotein to make meat substitutes adds further to the environmental impact. It is found that often the processing adds almost triple the carbon footprint as compared to just the growth of the mycoprotein.
The third and last argument is the anthropocentric argument against veganism specifically concerning the carrying capacity of the ecosystem with respect to the vegan lifestyle. There are several anthropocentric studies that have attempted to understand the ideal diet system that would allow for the optimal sustenance of the planet’s resources given its population. One such study, published in the journal Elementa, attempted to compare the carrying capacity of different forms of healthy eating patterns in the United States: 5 diets that contained meat and 3 vegetarian diets (Peters et al., 2016). The diets that included meat(omnivorous) had varying transitions towards plant based protein (80%, 60%, 40%, and 20% healthy omnivorous). The vegetarian diets included ovo-lacto vegetarian, lacto vegetarian, and vegan. Carrying capacity here is understood as the total number of people fed per unit land area. It was found that the carrying capacity for veganism was higher than other two vegetarian diets but found to be lower compared to some of the healthy omnivorous diets. The study used three types of land use patterns: grazing land (unsuitable for crops but great for feeding cattle), perennial cropland (supports crops that are alive all year round and can be harvested multiple times), cultivated cropland (land used for cultivating crops like vegetables, fruits and nuts). Different types of land use different kinds of food and not all diets exploit land equally. The vegan diet tends to waste the land that is available by feeding fewer people. This was because out of all the diets, veganism does not use perennial cropland at all, thereby wasting the chance to produce substantial food.
In conclusion, the vegan lifestyle is not immune to sustainability and ethical issues. However, this does not mean the lifestyle is not a possible sustainable lifestyle option. What truly matters are the choices we make as consumers in our daily lives to fulfill our dietary needs, no matter what the diet. These choices primarily include whether or not our food is locally sourced and ethically produced. Rather than viewing veganism as a popular trend that demands the inclusion of exotic food items, instead we must attempt to adapt the diet to suit our own needs whilst minimizing the effect on the environment. In my opinion, what really matters are the smaller everyday choices we make in attempting to understand the process behind what is put on our plate. Rather than viewing veganism as some sort of panacea to sustainability and ethical issues in the food industry, we must instead view it as a potential base upon which we can build an individual dietary system that is in harmony with our planet.
