Will new generations lead the way to plant-based eating?

I recently returned from a memorable visit to the campus of the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana, where our family lived when I was a member of the faculty. We participated in Homecoming Weekend festivities and had many conversations with undergraduate students.  I was impressed with their intellectual attainments, their energy, and purpose, their sense of where they were going in life. Most of the events we were attending involved food, from breakfast, lunch or dinner to hors d'oeuvres. There was a surprising amount of talk about food. Many students told me that they were vegetarian or—even more commonly—following a vegan diet.  A few said their dietary choices were prompted by health considerations, but more generally they expressed ethical concerns for the future of our nation and global society. I was encouraged by what I heard from these young people. Since returning home (we live in Florida),  I’ve been feeling that it may be time once again to reflect on the importance of moving to a plant-based diet.  So here are some thoughts, in part abstracted from Project Drawdown materials. (Be sure to watch Paul Hawken’s great presentation at this site.)

Much depends on making people aware that our dependence on meat as a major component of the Western diet comes at a steep price in terms of global emissions of greenhouse gases.  Present practices of industrial-scale livestock production account for somewhere between 15 percent and 50 percent of global emissions, primarily carbon dioxide and methane. Ruminants such as cows are the most prolific offenders, as they digest their food.  But that’s only part of the story. Agricultural land use and associated energy consumption to grow livestock feed also produce carbon dioxide emissions.  On a per-calorie of food produced basis, industrial livestock agriculture generates much larger emissions than vegetables, fruits, grains, and legumes. 

It’s actually much worse than it needs to be. According to the World Health Organization, only 10 to 15 percent of one’s daily calories need to come from protein, and a plant-based diet primarily can easily meet that threshold.  On average, adult males require about 56 grams of protein each day, and women about 46, but in the United States and Canada, the average adult consumes more than 90 grams of protein per day. Where plant-based protein is abundant, human beings do not need animal protein.  It’s interesting to compare the Protein Scorecards of various foods.  One sees that beans and whole grains are much more effective at delivering protein at lower greenhouse gas emissions. Vegetables generally score much higher than animal sources.

Vegetarians and vegans don’t need to sacrifice the pleasures of tasty food by switching away from animal-based protein. If you have concerns about changing your diet away from animal protein, there are many websites worth visiting.  One classic introduction is the film,“Forks over Knives”.  The Forks over Knives recipe website is great! Dr. Michael Greger’s  NutritionFacts.org is a treasure trove of references and good advice on diet and nutrition. The students I spoke with at Illinois were all well aware that one can eat well, in terms of both nutrition and pleasure.  A groundbreaking 2016 study from the University of Oxford modeled the climate, health, and economic benefits of a worldwide transition to plant-based diets between now and 2050. Business-as-usual emissions could be reduced by as much as 70 percent through adopting a vegan diet and 63 percent for a vegetarian diet (which includes cheese, milk, and eggs).  The potential health impact on millions of lives translates into trillions of dollars in savings: dietary shifts could be worth as much as 13 percent of the worldwide gross domestic product in 2050.

If western society and newly affluent societies worldwide could just become less piggish about their consumption of animal protein, that would be a major step in the right direction. A 2018 World Resources Institute report analyzes a variety of possible dietary modifications and finds that “ambitious animal protein reduction” — focused on reducing overconsumption of animal-based foods in regions where people devour more than 60 grams of protein and 2,500 calories per day — holds the greatest promise for ensuring a sustainable future for global food supply and the planet. “In a world that is on a course to demand more than 70 percent more food, nearly 80 percent more animal-based foods, and 95 percent more beef between 2006 and 2050,” its authors argue, altering meat consumption patterns is critical to achieving a host of global goals related to hunger, healthy lives, water management, terrestrial ecosystems, and, of course, climate change.

The case for a plant-based diet is robust. That said, bringing about substantial dietary change is not simple, because eating is profoundly personal and cultural. Meat is laden with meaning, blended into customs, and appealing to taste buds. Meat substitutes made from plants are one way to help shift established ways of cooking and eating.  They can mimic the flavor, texture, and aroma of animal protein and even replicate its amino acids, fats, carbohydrates, and trace minerals. With nutritious alternatives that appeal to meat-centric palates and practices, companies are actively leading that charge, proving that it is possible to swap out proteins in painless ways. Select plant-based alternatives such as those marketed by Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are now in grocery meat shelves.  It’s a rapidly growing development in the food industry. Food columnists such as Mark Bittman, journalist and author of How to Cook Everything Vegetarian, and Yotam Ottolenghi, restaurateur and author of Plenty are helping introducing new dietary norms. And hey! If Tom Brady of the New England Patriots can eat vegetarian, why can’t the rest of us? 

A key step in reducing the impacts of animal husbandry on climate is ending price-distorting government subsidies of the U.S. livestock industry, so that the wholesale and resale prices of animal protein would more accurately reflect their true cost. It is not easy to get a grip on the total subsidies that undergird livestock production, but when all the various components of the enterprise are taken into account, it’s a heap of money.  Some critics of the present system have proposed levying taxes on meat production that reflect its social and environmental externalities. We’re a long way from that happening, but the social incentives for reducing the scope of industrial livestock production are clear: less contamination of municipal water resources, lower rates of chronic disease, less damage to freshwater resources and ecosystems — for example, smaller aquatic “dead zones” created by farm runoff. Plant-based diets also open opportunities to restore land now being used for livestock production to other, carbon-sequestering uses.

Global warming is putting pressure on humanity’s capacity to fend off disastrous changes in climate.  Figuring out how to feed a growing population is perhaps the most urgent. What is certain is that we can’t continue on the paths we’ve been following.  But we can’t make effective changes until people come to grips with the urgency of our situation, until they understand how corporate and political special interests work to maintain the status quo. There are many questions begging for answers.  For example, why are so many of the livestock operations in this country owned by, or supported by, Chinese interests? Is that in our national interest? More on that in a future blog.

In the meantime, what’s on your dinner menu? If it’s plant-based, tell your friends and family about it. Come on, people, let’s get together!