
What would happen if all Americans went vegan? - dtawfik1
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/what-would-happen-if-all-americans-went-vegan
======
bmcusick
I'm not a vegan, or interested in becoming one, but this "study" is just
stupid. Just look at some of the basic assumptions:

"researcher Mary Beth Hall began by estimating the impact of converting all
land now used by the livestock industry to cropland for human food"

Why on earth would you do that? Livestock are much less efficient at using
land than crops, in terms of how much land you need to produce a calorie.
Furthermore, a HUGE percentage of our current crops are used to feed
livestock. Without even Googleing it, the assumption should be that we would
not use all pasture land for crop land. The total amount of land under crops
might even go down under the vegan scenario, since eating the food directly
would be more efficient.

Also:

"Burning the excess waste would add some 2 million tons of carbon to the
atmosphere, they estimate."

First off, is burning the most likely way this would be disposed of? Why not
compost.

Second, crops are carbon neutral. They take CO2 from the atmosphere when
growing, so how can they add CO2 to the atmosphere when burnt?

"Fertilizer demands would also go up while the supply of animal manure
dwindled."

Again, only true if the amount of crops increased. I'm doubtful.

The points about nutrition are better made though. Animal products are rich in
some minerals and vitamins that are sparse in a vegan diet. Not entirely
missing, but sparse. But then that's why I'm not a vegan.

~~~
qume
If that is really why youre not vegan I recommend the book 'How not to die' by
Michael Gregor.

The health benefits of a whole food plant based diet are astonishing, and the
whole missing vitamin mineral thing is trivially taken care of.

Becoming vegan will lead to immediate and long term health benefits. And from
personal experience its much easier and more fun than you could dare to
expect.

~~~
Glyptodon
...and I'm sure eating an egg here and there from your back-yard hen (AKA
living garbage disposal) will absolutely ruin all of it... /s

I don't disagree that theres a lot of room and a some benefits to reducing
meat consumption. But I don't think that's the same as it being sensible for
everyone to be vegan.

~~~
Overtonwindow
Vegans will always say their way is better. There's a commitment there with
zero room for compromise, and I think IMO for many it's a fad.

~~~
eighthnate
It's not a fad. Veganism is like a cult. Vegans are starving their infants to
death for their "religion".

[https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/wjqbem/judge-
convicts...](https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/wjqbem/judge-convicts-
parents-after-baby-dies-from-vegan-diet)

Plant-only diet is terrible for humans just like a meat-only diet. The best
diet for humans is a balanced diet.

~~~
Overtonwindow
..and pets...

------
cannonedhamster
Where to start with this study.

* Study authors are tied to dairy farming and, animal and poultry farming.

* America is never going to be a vegan, or even vegetarian nation. There are too many jobs tied up in fattening cattle and pigs to go that route.

* Americans manliness is tied up into how much they kill, it's not going to happen.

* There are some horrific oversights such as the fact that a large portion of our farming is already for animal feed. Something like 800 million people could be fed if we planted different crops instead of animal feed.

* There is literally no reason to go vegan instead of vegetarian for most people. Almost all the ethical reasons behind veganism can be routed around with minimal effort.

* As someone who eats a mostly vegan diet, the dietary concerns for the vast majority of people are nonsensical. Yes, of course there are exceptions to everything, but there are entire countries that are mostly vegan/vegetarian that don't have these issues. B vitamins and calcium? Has his person done zero research? Both are absurdly easy to obtain in vegan form in the local grocery store of most somewhat populated areas right now, if everyone was vegan these would be staple foods.

This is absolutely the worst kind of sensationalized junk science to once
again discredit a lifestyle that affects no one negatively.

------
bunderbunder
I haven't read the paper ($10), but, based on the press release, they seem to
be making some very strange assumptions about how things would work out:

 _...began by estimating the impact of converting all land now used by the
livestock industry to cropland for human food. That would increase the amount
of agricultural waste—corn stalks, potato waste, and other inedibles now fed
to livestock—and eliminate the animals that now eat much of it. Burning the
excess waste would add some 2 million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, they
estimate. Fertilizer demands would also go up while the supply of animal
manure dwindled. That would mean making more artificial fertilizer, adding
another 23 million tons of carbon emissions per year._

Converting _all_ the land used by livestock into cropland for human food? That
seems highly unlikely, just based on my (admittedly grade school level)
understanding of ecology. I'd expect moving humans lower on the food chain to
reduce the overall amount of plant matter it takes to sustain them. So Id'
expect you could probably let all the pasture land reforest, and then convert
a portion of the land used for feed crops to human food, and let the rest
reforest as well.

Burning all the by-products also seems drastic. I'm going to assume that an
expert in agriculture would have a good reason to not even mention composting.
But even without that, and even if other uses couldn't be found, you could at
least turn them into a net carbon sink by burying them in a nice anaerobic
landfill. And even without that, the apparent that feeding that stuff to
cattle makes the carbon somehow disappear is bizarre. The vast majority of
that carbon will still end up in the atmosphere, via the animal's lungs.

Their estimate of net fertilizer demands seems like it has just got to be
based on some careful selection of the boundaries of the system they're
considering. I grew up in corn and soybean country, so, while I'm not a farmer
myself, I am well aware that it takes more than just manure to sufficiently
fertilize the nation's feed crops. The enormous reduction in artificial
fertilizer demand from reduced need for those feed crops has to be included in
the formula if you want to get some accurate figures.

------
merpnderp
I'm gonna go out on a limb and bet the study grossly underestimates how much
more fertilizer would be required to turn pasture into cropland, as pasture is
normally far less suitable to cropland, and thus is used as pasture.

Not that there is a need to convert very much of that land to cropland - corn
and wheat produce far more food per acre than livestock.

Most or all of that land would turn back into wilderness and we'd all die in
car wrecks from the millions more deer crossing the roads.

------
ni-hil
The only thing that article tells me is that if I want to know anything about
this I need to read the paper. I think it's an interesting subject and they
could have made a good article but this is just lazy reporting.

~~~
s0rce
I think you described 90% of science reporting. If you want substance you have
to read the (frequently paywalled and expensive) paper.

------
Simulacra
I think there's an evolutionary reason why we didn't remain vegetarian or
vegan. I don't know the science, but I do know plenty of people live healthy
lives on meat-eating diets, and do just fine. Questions like this really only
lend themselves to hyperbole. There is really nothing a meat-eating person can
say that a vegan will agree with, and likely vice-versa. It's a zero-sum
argument.

------
philipkglass
Other summaries of this article have noted that reducing GHG emissions from
American agriculture by 28% is equivalent to reducing _total_ American
emissions by 2.6%. (Though, as other HN commenters have noted, just converting
all land area devoted to animal agriculture to direct production of human-
edible foods is unrealistic; I'd expect somewhat larger benefits in a
realistic scenario where a lot of that land goes idle. But _all_ agriculture
together accounts for only 9% of American emissions to begin with.)

I personally don't eat beef, and have ethical concerns about animal treatment
in food production systems, but people whose only source of information is
"Cowspiracy" badly overestimate how large a proportion of American GHG
emissions stem from animal agriculture.

------
chasedehan
> Burning the excess waste would add some 2 million tons of carbon to the
> atmosphere

Hello? This is what composting is for - those materials could be turned back
into the land, making for better producing land. This could make some of the
pasture land that is no so great into better producing.

------
ndh2
This similar study by the same authors seems a bit more reasonable.

[https://iapreview.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publica...](https://iapreview.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=323593)

> _Despite greater total availability of energy, a feasible solution could not
> be identified, meaning that the yearly nutrient requirements of the U.S.
> population could not be met under the defined constraints. Deficiencies in
> vitamins (A, D, E, B12, and choline) and minerals (Ca) were the primary
> cause of this infeasibility. Although eliminating animals from the food
> production system may seem advantageous based on surface-level comparisons
> of system energetics, a more comprehensive analysis of the food production
> system highlights the unique and essential role of livestock products in the
> food production system. This suggests that substantial gains in
> environmental impact could be made by simply reducing daily intake, rather
> than affecting dramatic shifts in consumption pattern._

Two animal scientists had a silly hypothesis "is it a good idea to remove all
farm animals", and proved the answer to be no.

Too bad they don't provide access to these studies. To me it looks like they
just left it at that, and didn't investigate any further, e. g. the question
of how many farm animals could be removed while still meeting all dietary
requirements.

------
komali2
I wonder if meat cubes will count as vegan when those come about.

I hope so, cause I'd love to go vegan for all the environmental reasons, but
god damn do I love meat, and cooking is my primary hobby so I'm not willing to
give up all the history of recipes surrounding meat. For now, buying local is
my solution.

~~~
Overtonwindow
How can one give up bacon? Should be a philosophical question.

~~~
komali2
Hah, to be fair I haven't had bacon in a long time. It'd be much easier for me
to give up bacon if I know I can just have steak and eggs instead ;)

That would be the biggest hard no to veganism for me - lack of eggs. It's too
critical for baking for me.

~~~
qume
Substitute freshly ground flax seeds (linseed) and water. You'll get a huge
Omega-3 hit, and you'll be surprised how after a while you not only don't
notice but end up preferring it.

------
swendoog
> "we don’t currently produce in sufficient quantities to make it a
> sustainable diet for the entire population"

I wonder what we are missing in our crops that, if grown, would bridge this
gap?

------
dogruck
Personally, I don't find it persuasive or constructive to start a thought
experiment with "what would happen if this thing that will never happen
actually happens."

Instead, I think you just get divisive click bate. Vegans will click thinking,
"damn right!" Non-vegans will likely ignore it, thinking, "okay loony."

I think a stronger argument would lead with a direct fact or point of alarm.
For example, "every non-vegan is contributing <blah> to greenhouse gasses."

~~~
logfromblammo
How about we also consider some less extreme hypotheticals, such as what might
happen if everyone substituted _Tenebrio_ meat for their _Bos_ meat
consumption.

I think they taste fine, but the spouse gets super-squicked at just the
_thought_ of _me_ eating them. Apparently, it's just fine if _the turtle_ eats
them. That's an unfair double-standard right there. We're both opportunistic
omnivores, after all.

And the vegan police can't exactly stop me from throwing grain meal in a
bucket and raising my own beetles, so the 100% vegan thing won't be happening
anyway.

~~~
Apocryphon
Why even go that far. Just hypothetisize having everyone only consume white
meat and not red meat, the latter of which is both more taxing on the human
physique, not just on the environment.

~~~
logfromblammo
It's a lot easier for the food cops to find a backyard chicken coop than an
indoor beetle-raising operation. And let's be honest with ourselves; in order
to enforce 100% veganism, there will have to be "war on meat" food cops.

I'm not going to stop eating meat unless someone literally puts a gun in my
face, and then I will start again right after the gun is out of my face, and
the gun-pointer is done roasting in my buried Morlock3000(TM) barbecue. It's
_technically_ not cannibalism if I feed the unfortunate Eloi to carnivorous
insects and then eat the bugs, right?~

You can't force people to stop eating meat, and the veganism ecological
argument will _never_ be convincing enough to get 100% acceptance. You get far
more traction out of finding ways to make the existing lifestyle _status quo_
less damaging to the ecosystem. So now you're back to reducing the impact of
the global beef herd in ways that don't involve reducing it all the way down
to zero head of cattle.

~~~
Apocryphon
> It's a lot easier for the food cops to find a backyard chicken coop than an
> indoor beetle-raising operation.

Wasn't so hard in the new Blade Runner

------
Overtonwindow
We would likely suffer from mass malnutrition. If you want to see what a
country looks like that has gone "all vegan" just look at North Korea.
Protein, from animals, is critical for not just survival, but growth and
sustainability of the population. Relying on plant-based and artificial
sources of protein is a recipe for disaster.

~~~
54mf
This is false and serious FUD. There are a handful of vitamins/minerals that
aren't found in meat-free diets (B12 is the big one) but they're all easily
covered by fortified foods and/or taking a daily multivitamin. "Protein from
animals" is absolutely not critical, and protein is found in all sorts of
meatless sources. Nuts, leafy greens, etc.

~~~
choko
My wife went vegan and it caused her to become anemic. She talked to two
different doctors, and tried different supplements. She is far healthier with
a little meat in her diet than without. I'm not claiming this is the norm, but
you should realize that not everyone tolerates a diet completely devoid of
meat.

------
mgarfias
I’d go on a rampage.

------
tomc1985
How presumptuous of them

------
btbuildem
What would happen? 90% of them would go back to non-vegan diat in a relatively
short time [1]

~~~
komali2
Did you intend to link something? I see the [1] but no link

------
mangix
What will happen is infant mortality will rise to astronomic proportions and
everyone will be a miserable pile of walking gas.

This so called study is meaningless.

~~~
komali2
I'm curious about your 2 assertions, because they are new oppositions to
veganism I haven't heard before. Where did you learn that veganism causes
rising infant mortality, and also that veganism causes an increase in gas?

