Does Vegan = Healthy and Sustainable?
It is a common societal expectation that packaged foods labelled “vegan” are automatically of superior nutritional and environmental quality. Coca-Cola and Doritos are plant-based, but does that mean they are environmentally sustainable and nutritious products? A vegan diet is one that involves abstaining from the consumption of meat, dairy, and any other animal-derived product. Over the past decade, veganism and plant-based lifestyles have gained popularity among modern and western cultures. The catalyst for adopting such a diet can range from disease and illness to ethical concerns and animal welfare beliefs. More commonly, people who transition to a vegan diet seek environmental and nutritional benefits. In an Australian study of consumers’ attitudes and perceptions towards vegan food items, it was found that of those who consume plant-based products, 41.5% of consumers do so out of environmental concerns and 28.6% for nutritional reasons (“Attitudes and Perceptions” 7). With this surge in popularity has come a plethora of vegan grocery offerings, particularly ones that mimic animal products. Of these offerings, plant-based meat substitutes have taken supermarkets by storm. Many companies have found ways to replicate the taste, texture, meaty satisfaction, and even the protein content of beef burger patties. Despite the revolutionary innovation that is plant meat, there is much debate over whether these protein sources are healthy or beneficial for the environment, especially when compared to the traditional animal-based alternative.
It has become a recent social phenomenon to rely on social media for information on health particulars, an issue concerning healthcare professionals skeptical of what is put on such media outlets. Critics contend that consumers are being misled by the media regarding the true benefits of a vegan lifestyle, and more specifically, the nutritional and environmental merits of vegan meat. Using extensive research regarding the production, nutritional content, and environmental impact corresponding to vegan meat, and by analyzing social media posts and advertisements by plant-based meat alternative trail-blazing companies, it will be discerned whether consumers are being fed accurate information about the benefits of vegan meat. The advertisements of plant-based meat alternative companies frame their products as offering identical, and even superior, nutritional value to animal meat, lending consumers unknowledgeable in veganism to fall victim to this untrue claim at the expense of their health.
Protein...What is it and Why Does it Matter?
One concern surrounding the nutritional merits of plant-based meat alternatives is that, in comparison to animal meat, they do not offer adequate amounts of protein, arguably the most vital nutrient. Without the presence of protein, amongst several other nutrients, the human diet is incomplete (Singh et al. 2510). A protein molecule consists of several long chains of amino acids interconnected by covalent peptide bonds, known as polypeptides (Singh et al. 2510). Proteins fold into unique conformations contingent on the interactions between the amino acid sidechains required to perform its specific function (Singh et al. 2510). There are twenty different amino acids in proteins, each with different chemical properties (Singh et al. 2510). As humans, we require all twenty of these constituents; eleven of these come from inside our bodies, meaning that the other nine we must derive from food (Singh et al. 2510). When the energy we consume contains all nine of these amino acids, that is what is known as a complete protein source (Singh et al. 2510).
The Nutritional Profiles of Animal vs. Plant Protein
According to a group study pertaining to the nutritional profiles of animal versus plant protein, animal products, such as egg protein, milk protein, and meat protein are considered the highest quality protein source (Singh et al. 2512). They also offer high contents of vitamin B12, saturated fat, and LDL cholesterol which aids in protein synthesis as well as swifter muscle growth and repair (Singh et al. 2511). In a debate between herself and veganism advocate Bruce Friedrich, nutrition educator Sally Fallon contends that there are also many key nutrients offered in animal products that one cannot derive from plants, such as substantial amounts of vitamin D, coenzyme QIO, and long chain fatty acids DHA and EPA (20). These nutrients are so vital for humans that we store them for times of famine and bodily distress (Fallon and Friedrich 20). Additionally, the group study explains that animal protein contains heme-iron, which is a type of iron that can be absorbed and utilized in the body (Singh et al. 2511). Despite these advantages, animal meat is low in dietary fiber, which helps to keep hunger and blood sugar in check, as well as micronutrients and vitamins B5, B6, B7, K, A, niacin, and thiamine (Singh et al. 2511). In assessing the merits of both animal and plant protein sources, the Stray Dog Institute found that cholesterol, hormones, residues from agrichemicals, and antibiotics are also commonly found in raw meat (“Alternative Meat” par. 23). Singh and her cohorts also declare that consuming high quantities of red meat such as burgers, hot dogs, bacon, sausage, and smoked meat increases the risk of cardiovascular illness, shortening lifespan and human longevity (2512).
Conversely, the group of researchers explain that plant proteins are healthier than animal proteins in that they pack more nutrients into fewer calories, which is an attractive benefit amid a society ridden by calorically dense diets (Singh et al. 2512). The presence of phytochemicals in plant protein gives it an edge due to their high quantities of vitamins and minerals (Singh et al. 2512). The downfall of plant protein is that, aside from quinoa and buckwheat, they lack all nine amino acids when consumed alone, and therefore, are not complete protein sources (Singh et al. 2511). In addition, non-heme iron contained in plants cannot be absorbed by the body, making it a poor source of this mineral (Singh et al. 2511). Notwithstanding this fact, when combined with all essential amino acids, plant proteins are considered a superfood, which is linked to many health benefits including emotional well-being, high energy levels, and better heart health and immunity (Singh et al. 2512). Unlike animal meat, consuming large quantities of plant protein actually lowers the risk of chronic disease and improves total mortality (Singh et al. 2512).
Are Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Actually "Healthy"?
Many companies have begun to find ways to merge several plant protein sources into one plant-based meat alternative product, offering a denser nutritional profile and a similarly satiating experience to consuming animal meat. Several of these companies are making such strenuous efforts to mimic the taste and texture of animal products that they are compromising the health component of a plant substitute. In assessing the merits of plant meat, Daphnee Ewing-Chow, the senior contributor of Food and Drink at Forbes, finds that plant meat spear headers such as Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat use scientifically engineered flavors, smells, and colors to mock the appearance, taste, and aroma of beef patties (par. 4). They even include additives such as soy leghemoglobin, a genetically modified form of yeast, to imitate the way that beef bleeds (Ewing-Chow par. 4). Impossible Foods’ and Beyond Meats’ addition of GMOs in their products that claim to be a more healthful alternative further blurs the line between nutrition and processed junk. Additionally, these products have the same, if not more, saturated fat then beef and exponentially greater quantities of sodium, containing nearly 25% of the suggested daily sodium intake in one serving (Ewing-Chow par. 5).
This is not to say that this is the case for all plant alternatives. Many offerings on the market, such as Dr. Praeger's or Tru Root, have vegetables, grains, and cereals as their main ingredients and simply use differentiable seasoning blends to mock the taste of meat products (Ewing-Chow par. 14). While these products don’t have the comparable protein content to beef that Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat products do, they are whole foods-based, contain much lower quantities of saturated fat and sodium, are richer in fiber and micronutrients, and are less calorie dense. No matter the vegan meat that one consumes, there are advantages and disadvantages in terms of its nutritional properties when compared to animal meat. One thing to remember is that eating a plant-based burger is not the same as eating a beef burger, nor is it the same as eating a salad, despite the latter being derived from plants (“Alternative Meat” par. 23).
The Environmental Externalities of Animal Agriculture
Beyond the nutritional discrepancies of vegan meat and animal meat, the environmental externalities derived from the latter's manufacture are also dramatically different. Livestock agriculture is inherently environmentally unsustainable and unethical due to its practice of killing animals for the purpose of human consumption. What is more is that its consequences go far beyond violating animal welfare. Expert in ecology and botany Susan Milius shares that producing food accounts for 26 percent of worldly climate-warming emissions, and of this proportion, 57 percent is derived from field agriculture, livestock, and fish farming (2). More broadly, 15 percent of the globe’s total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions arise from farmed animals (“Alternative Meat” par. 25). According to a summary of experts’ opinions on the impacts of plant meat, a whopping 34 percent of crops grown globally and 50 percent of the planet’s water supply is exploited to feed livestock – a sizable proportion of nutrition that could potentially feed hungry and thirsty mouths across the world (Robicelli par. 2). Growing crops to feed livestock and cattle ranching are two of the world’s leading causes of deforestation in critical habitats, such as tropical rainforests (“Alternative Meat” par. 25).
Replacing merely a fraction of farmed meat in one’s diet with plant-derived products could theoretically repopulate forests or nourish more people by saving plots of land traditionally used for animal agriculture (Robicelli par. 7). The authors of a 2020 study published in Frontiers Sustainable Food Systems estimate that plant meat production utilizes 41 percent less land than fish farming, 77 percent less than poultry, 82 percent less than pig farming, and a catastrophic 98 percent less than beef (Robicelli par. 12). Water usage is also an issue of immense severity. Cattle products require twenty times more water per calorie than do crops like cereals and legumes ("Alternative Meat” par. 25). While it can take between 2,000 and 8,000 gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef, it only takes 300 gallons to produce a pound of tofu (Robicelli par. 6).
How Do Plant-Based Meat Alternatives' Externalities Compare?
The director of the population and sustainability program at the Center for Biological Diversity observes that in comparison with beef, Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat produce approximately 90 percent less emissions and reduce land use by 93 percent and water use by 87 to 99 percent (Robicelli par. 8). On top of that, they generate zero manure pollution (Robicelli par. 8). Just like the nutritional value of such plant-alternatives, however, these companies are not perfect in their environmental externalities. Indeed, the production of such products requires far fewer resources and creates greatly less emissions by omitting animals from the equation, but its manufacture makes use of industrial farming. According to Mark Hyman, the author of Food Fix, approximately 30 to 40 percent of all atmospheric carbon comes from the destruction of soil due to agricultural chemicals and tillage, and industrial farming is only adulterating the problem (Robicelli par. 10). Furthermore, New York Times has observed that neither Impossible Foods nor Beyond Meat have released information regarding their total carbon emissions across their operations, meaning their factory operatives; only the statistics derived from utilizing plant sources instead of animal ones have been showcased (Robicelli par. 13). Nevertheless, plant-based alternatives are far superior to animal products in that their greenhouse gas emissions and resource usage is quite minimal when compared to livestock agriculture.
Amid the complexity of weighing the benefits of vegan meat vs. animal meat, how is society to derive their information and properly solidify their understandings around such topic?
As Tom Chatfield explains it, “the 21st century has created ‘infostorms’ that overwhelm our senses” (par. 1). Humans are consistently being overwhelmed by news and information from a plethora of sources. In a society that is ridden by distrust in mass media and distaste for partisan opinion, it is easy to turn to social media to obtain one’s information, especially when social media has taken on a sense of comforting aimlessness in a world of chaos. Researchers Sylvia Wen-Ying Chou and Anna Gaysynsky claim that as a result of this, people now rely on social media platforms for health information and advice (270). Just like all news contained in social media, misrepresented health particulars are easily rooted and spread within such platforms (Chou and Gaysynsky 270). Because the nature of social media allows people to connect to like-minded individuals and choose exactly what they want to see, the social media experience is more personalized. When people are enabled to select the news they see, they tend to believe the things that they want to believe or that solidify their preconceptions (Chou and Gaynsynsky 270).
Chatfield compares this kind of reliance on social information to a simple scenario. He begs us to imagine ourselves in a crowded theatre when everyone starts to panic and look for an exit. You don’t know the source of this panic, but you sense that everyone is reacting to the situation in a frantic manner. Your social interpretation of this scenario – these people believe that something bad is happening, so you must leave too – is inspiring your movement, not your first-hand accounts or knowledge of your surroundings (Chatfield par. 2).
The psychological reaction to information we absorb in the media is quite similar. Danish researchers Hendrick and Hansen describe how when we are met with information on social media that we don’t have much prior knowledge about, or the information about the subject is too overwhelming to tackle on our own, we are quick to believe what we see and to jump on the social bandwagon (Chatfield par. 8). This is especially true when the information we see on social media is pertaining to subjects that we are interested in, meaning that when we face advertisements relating to a concept of our interest, yet one we aren’t informed about, we are quick to rely solely on that source for the basis of our knowledge (Chatfield par. 8). As this response to social media is so deeply rooted in our psyche, and society is increasingly reliant on online platforms for health information and guidance, it is important to analyze and assess the advertisements that consumers are being fed pertaining to the nutritional and environmental merits of plant-based products.
Impossible Foods, arguably the pioneer of plant-based meat, was founded in 2011 with the mission of making meat-based products vegan while preserving the taste, texture, and satisfaction of animal meat. Much of their marketing and advertising mimic the way that fast-food chains market their own products with intense closeups, large-scale foods, and toppings and sauces oozing out of the sandwich. The reaction that Impossible Foods’ advertisement triggers is also quite parallel to the ones that Burger King and McDonalds produce — a mouth-watering physical reaction and an aggressive urge to devour. Impossible Foods pointedly targets not vegans, explicitly, but instead the meat-eaters of society, lending them the opportunity to try a more environmentally friendly alternative with little to no negotiation or sacrifice of taste. While this is a powerful strategy in which they expand their audience to reach a wider crowd than the small minority of vegans, their audience isn’t as equipped to understand the differentials between plant meat and animal meat. Applying Chatfield’s theory of belief per lack of knowledge, the attention-grabbing quote ”Eat Meat" offers the idea that the product is a direct substitute for beef (Douaiher). This is a dangerous, slippery slope. Contending that their product is almost identical to beef leads consumers to assume that they are receiving the same nutritional content from Impossible Meat that they would be absorbing from real beef. What is more is that consumers may even be led to believe that the alternative is healthier having been derived from a plant source. This is definitely not the case. Yes, Impossible Burgers contain impressive quantities of protein and fiber, but they are highly processed, contain minimal whole food sources, have high quantities of saturated fat and sodium, are deficient in many vitamins and micronutrients, and contain several genetically modified ingredients. When compared to beef burgers that contain, well, beef, Impossible Foods’ products are not to be directly substituted as an alternative.
In terms of the environmental appeal of the company, consumers feel inspired to indulge in such a product, as if they are ”joining the movement” to preserve the planet and halt climate change (Douaiher). This isn’t an unjustified feeling, as the statistics provided in the advertisement regarding the processes of Impossible Foods utilizing ”96% less land, 87% less water, and 89% less GHG emissions” are all accurate and plentiful steps towards environmental preservation (Douaiher). Despite these impressive statistics, the wording of the advertisement again suggests false hope, especially for those who are not as educated in the impacts of opting for vegan substitutes. By consuming an Impossible Burger, one is not stopping climate change altogether, saving land for agriculture, or even preserving water for those living in thirst. Instead, eating an Impossible Burger here and there is a step in the right direction to diminish our carbon footprint.
Another trail blazer of the plant meat industry is Beyond Meat. The company was founded in 2019 with the stated mission of combatting climate change with food, naming themselves the unsung heroes of climate change. Similar to Impossible Foods, most of their advertisements feature closeup, drool-worthy shots of enlarged burgers, again triggering the same response as fast-food chain marketing communications. The focus selling point of the product is how consumers don’t have to compromise their beloved experience of eating meat to have a positive environmental impact. Thus, just like Impossible Foods, the company appears to be targeting current meat-eaters instead of those who already follow a plant-based diet regime. Due to the lack of knowledge that this demographic has about the nutritional and environmental impacts of plant-based alternatives, the meaning of this advertisement, “We Skipped the Cow Part, Not the Burger,” can feel quite ambiguous and confusing (Beyond Meat). Speculative consumers may question the merits of the product due to its cryptic nature, while many others would jump to conclusions regarding its benefits. Drawing back to Chatfield’s research, consumers unintelligent in veganism may see the advertisement, feel overwhelmed by curiosity, read the positive comments contained within the social media post, and automatically believe it to be a healthful and superior alternative. The misconception among society that all products labelled “vegan” are healthy would also spur this assumption. Additionally, the notion of the advertisement that the Beyond Meat patty merely skips out on the beef aspect of a burger suggests that their product is the same on all other nutritional levels which, like Impossible Burgers, is far from true. This is, again, a slippery slope for newcomers in the world of plant-based alternatives.
Despite the company claiming to be a leading champion of the fight against climate change, much of their online content has no relation to this declaration. Instead, their posts consist of their products prepared in fun and delectable ways mimicking the way that animal products are commonly prepared. Coming from such an established and acclaimed company, it is likely that many consumers believe their environmental impacts to be of the utmost strength without having seen the first-hand proof of these accounts. Indeed, when looking at the statistics released by the company one can find that their environmental externalities are impressively positive; however, the fact that they aren’t used as a selling point for the consumer feels slightly ingenuine.
Dr. Praeger’s was started in 1994 by two heart surgeons with the purpose of bringing equally healthy and delicious frozen food to everyone. Straying away from the theme of creating plant solutions for beef products, Dr. Praeger’s is solely focused on packing whole foods like grains, legumes, vegetables, and other micronutrients into a singular product. Unlike Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat, they aren’t claiming to have products that serve as substitutes for animal meat and thereby aren’t appealing to meat-eating consumers to convince them to no longer indulge in livestock agriculture-based offerings. Instead, they move to engage with consumers who are health and nutrition conscious. This parallel between the values of the company and the healthy eating patterns of the targeted consumers feels more sincere than the relationship between Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat to their customers. Dr. Praeger’s isn’t convincing uneducated consumers into believing the merits of their product, nor are they fooling consumers regarding how the product should be used. Additionally, while their advertisements don’t inherently exploit their positive environmental impacts or externalities, the fact that their products are whole-food-sourced correctly leads health and environmentally conscious consumers to acknowledge the environmental benefits of the product. Further, in accordance with Chatfield, because the consumer audience is already knowledgeable in nutrition, and Dr. Praeger’s isn’t making any ambiguous claims about the product, consumers understand the merits of the veggie patties and don’t prematurely reach false conclusions about its benefits.
The root of their advertisements is primarily the idea of providing “purely sensible foods” made with “free range plants” (Dr. Praeger’s). While the brand is mocking the way that meat is marketed in the use of the term “free range,” this doesn’t appear to fool consumers into thinking that their products are to serve as meat substitutes. Alternatively, it communicates the purity and holistic nature of their offerings. Further, the simplistic nature of their advertisements and packaging implicitly implies the benefits of their products, as the cleanest foods tend to be the ones with the most minimal slogans or product bragging.
So, Why Does This All Matter?
It is undeniable that plant-based meat alternatives are environmentally and nutritionally advantageous. From their high fiber and protein content and decreased usage of land and water sources to their fewer emissions and ability to decrease the risk of cardiovascular illness, their benefits are endless. Companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods rightfully gloat their positive environmental externalities to excite consumers and convince them of their advantages. However, they wrongfully convince meat-eating consumers unknowledgeable in plant-based nutrition that their products are direct substitutes for meat in the diet. This is not to say that it isn’t beneficial for one’s health to order an Impossible Burger at a restaurant instead of opting for an all-beef version. But it is ingenuine to lead consumers to believe that replacing all daily animal protein intake with Impossible and Beyond Meat is healthy given the highly processed nature of their manufacture. Perhaps the broader issue is the fact that consumers aren’t knowledgeable about the nutritional breakdown of the product and neglect to take a glance at the back of the package. In fact, 31.4% of Australian consumers admitted that they don’t observe the ingredients in making their purchase of vegan meat (“Attitudes and Perceptions” 8). And another issue may be the assumption that vegan food is healthier than non-vegan counterparts with 83.8% of surveyors in Australia claiming that a vegan diet supplies superior nutrition (“Attitudes and Perceptions” 6). Thus, it is possible that the primary issue is society lacking adequate information about the nature of vegan products and falling to the common misconception that vegan equals healthy. Nevertheless, it is companies like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat that are simply strengthening society’s assumptions about the benefits of vegan food. If people are interested in veganism as a means of supporting their health, opting for whole food products like Dr. Praeger’s is a nutritionally mindful choice. If consumers want to decrease their carbon footprint while eating a protein source that mimics animal products, buying Impossible Ground Beef for taco night instead of traditional beef is a great option. But just like Cheetos and Pringles, all processed foods should be enjoyed in moderation, no matter the vegan label.
Annotated Bibliography
Beyond Meat. A Showcase of Products Sold by Traveling Food Truck. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/CSIUPKXJcM6/
This primary source is a social media post by Beyond Meat campaigning their traveling food truck. Similar to Impossible Foods’ advertisement, this post features a close-up shot of an oozing double cheeseburger plastered in front of the food truck with a tagline reading, “We Skipped the Cow Part, Not the Burger.” Again, Beyond Meat aims to appeal to meat-eaters in accordance with the way they picture their food offerings. The way that they frame their product as being a burger without the beef falsely leads consumers to assume that their products serve as a transitive alternative to animal meat. Additionally, Beyond Meat is known for claiming themselves as the pioneers of the fight against climate change, yet this social media post nor most of their Instagram posts showcase this fact. This causes a feeling of ingenuity between the consumer and the brand that will be interesting to discuss in my analysis.
Chatfield, Tom. “Why We Believe Fake News.” BBC Future, 8 Sept. 2019, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190905-how-our-brains-get-overloaded-by-the-21st-century.
This article explains the psychological reasoning as to why society is so quick to believe the information we read or interact with on social media. The author creatively compares our human reaction to news on social media with a physical experience that will be interesting to put into conversation in my essay, bridging the gap between science and human experiences. He also explains the psychological process of how we come to believe what we see in the media, and how quickly it happens without us realizing we are doing it. This secondary source will prove helpful when introducing my analysis of social media posts, especially in communicating why we, as humans, are wired to believe what we see and how this is dangerous in the context of nutrition and environmental impacts.
Chou, Wen-Ying Sylvia, and Anna Gaysynsky. "A Prologue to the Special Issue:Health Misinformation on Social Media." American Journal of Public Health, vol. 110, 2020, pp. S270-S272. ProQuest, http://access.library.miami.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/prologue-special-issue-health-misinformation-on/docview/2531706341/se-2?accountid=14585, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AlPH.2020.305943.
This article is a discussion about how the misrepresentation of health information in social media poses a danger to public health. The author explains that the “fake news” around health in the media has spawned and only increased due to people turning to social media for information instead of mass media and health resources. This can be attributed to a feeling of distrust towards traditional news sources and distaste for the partisan and divided nature of such traditional sources. Thus, people now turn to social media for health information where misinformation can quickly root and spread. This secondary source of information will be useful in setting up my “lens” so to speak and to explain why it is so important to analyze the validity of social media and advertisements surrounding plant meat when this issue of misinformation is so pressing and relevant.
Douaiher, Cynthia. “Eat Meat. Save Earth.” Behance. https://www.behance.net/gallery/93322579/Impossible-Burger-Marketing-and-Visual-Campaign
This primary source is derived from a marketing campaign for Impossible Foods aimed at targeting meat-eaters. The artist of the image includes a mouth-watering close-up shot of the burger, similar to how fast-food chains commonly advertise their offerings. This seems to be a persuasive appeal to draw in carnivore consumers to try the product. Having seen that the Impossible Burger is so similar in look to a beef burger, the consumer is now curious and tempted. The environmental statistics and inspiration to join the cause for preventing climate change further that interest in the product and provide more of an incentive to buy the plant-based alternative. The audience targeted in the advertisement as well as the language “the burger”, “join the movement”, and “eat meat” will be interesting to dissect in my paper, as it suggests to the meat-eating consumer that a) an Impossible Burger serves as a direct nutritional substitute for beef, and b) the consumer is single handedly solving climate change. This will prove as an argument for how and why some plant meat companies wrongfully portray the benefits of their products to consumers.
Dr. Praeger’s. Visual Display of Products and Mission. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/CIUNoiRsxI6/.
This primary source is a social media post by Dr. Praeger’s displaying a few of their product offerings and their main slogan, “Purely Sensible Foods.” Dr. Praeger’s is a company who is less focused on providing animal-like plant meat and more focused on providing whole, nutrition-dense foods. Unlike the advertisements of Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat, this one doesn’t make any claims about how the product may serve as a substitute for animal meat, nor does it assert their environmental impacts. This isn’t to say that the advertisement isn’t strong. Dr Praeger’s aligns themselves with consumers that are health-focused and nutrition-driven. Thus, they don’t need to gloat the benefits of their products, as their consumers are already knowledgeable in the topic of health and environmental externalities and understand the benefits of what they are buying. The only benefit they highlight in their advertisements is the fact that their products are pure and sensible, which is a rightful assertion given their holistic ingredients. Perhaps the companies that target consumers with parallel principles and don’t have to manipulate consumers into believing the merits of the products are the companies with the most beneficial offerings. This will be an intriguing idea to draw on in my paper.
Ewing Chow, Daphne. “Not All ‘Meatless Meats’ Are Good For your Health or the Environment.” Forbes, 28 June 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/daphneewingchow/2020/06/28/not-all-meatless-meats-are-good-for-your-health-or-the-environment/?sh=1f460f412482.
This article is a deep dive into the nutritional and environmental impacts of specific “meatless meat” brands on the market. The author contends that typical plant-based meat alternatives heavily rely on factory production to manufacture their products, meaning they produce the same amount of emissions as poultry and five times the emissions of vegetables and legumes. Despite producing 10 times less emissions than beef products, among meat substitutes, veggie burgers are associated with the highest emissions. In conversation with founders of meat alternative companies, many say that consumers must look for products that have vegetables and whole foods as the primary ingredient. For companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, this doesn’t hold true. These companies’ products are full of highly processed and genetically modified ingredients, such as soy leghemoglobin, to mimic the texture and bloodiness of traditional meat. This secondary source inspired me to analyze Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods to observe how they are marketing their products to consumers as “health products.”
Fallon, Sally, and Bruce, Friedrich. "Debate: Is Veganism a Better Way of Life?" The Ecologist, vol. 31, no. 8, Oct. 2001, pp. 20-23. ProQuest, Accessed 2 March 2022, http://access.library.miami.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/debate-is-veganism-better-way-life/docview/234915787/se-2?accountid=14585.
This article is a debate between two scholars regarding the ethical, medical, and environmental justness of a vegan diet. While Fallon contends that animal products are essential to a healthy diet and to sustainable farming, Friedrich argues that a plant-based lifestyle improves human longevity and minimizes the depletion of land, potable water, and clean air. Fallon furthers his point by stating that PETA misplaces animal consumption as the cause of cruel factory farming and claims that even if humans decrease their consumption of animal products, the killing of animals is still necessary to protect crops (grains, soy, legumes) from being infiltrated by rodents and pests. He also asserts that when land is used for crops instead of animal grazing, the land is quickly depleted. Both points will be interesting to discuss in further depth when contrasted with the environmental benefits of veganism. Friedrich explains that in the UK, 80% of agricultural land is used to raise animals, as these animals require great quantities of food to then satisfy and feed carnivore humans. From this excessive feeding, the animals produce vast amounts of excrement, polluting water and destroying topsoil. It is interesting that Friedrich argues the negative impacts of animal grazing on the environment in a way that does not directly address Fallon’s statements regarding the depletion of land as a result of grain farming. This would make for another interesting area of unpacking, as it doesn’t seem like any environmental arguments that each scholar is making can be refuted.
“Is Alternative Meat Better for the Environment?” Stray Dog Institute, June 2021, https://straydoginstitute.org/alternative-meat/?gclid=CjwKCAjw_tWRBhAwEiwALxFPoUUhzria-_98n7R0UbU9sMwZKSFtOsvRne4hK0ZOPlkYJgSz2iHZKRoCEOIQAvD_BwE.
This article states that alternative meat, and even cultivated meat, are better for the environment than traditional meat products. The author explains how animals raised for food consumption require nutrition themselves, and the cultivation of this nutrition, specifically grain and cereals, requires vast amounts of water and land. Plant-based meats, alternatively, use the land and resources that would otherwise be used to produce crops to feed animals to turn into meat-like products themselves. More specifically, cattle ranching and growing industrial feed crops for animals are among two of the leading causes of deforestation in tropical climates. Additionally, beef products require roughly twenty times more water per calorie than cereal and grain crops and approximately 15% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are derived from farmed animals. Despite these facts, the author provides an interesting contradictive point stating that the production of plant-based meat substitutes comes with industrial practices that are quite mechanized and designed for high outputs, meaning they are not ridden from negative environmental externalities. This secondary source will make for useful information to include in my informative paragraphs about the environmental benefits and downfalls of plant-based and animal meat products to then use in analyzing various advertisements.
Milius, Susan. “A Big Analysis of Environmental Data Strengthens the Case for Plant-Based Diets.” Science News. 6 June 2018. AccessScience. Accessed 9 March 2022. https://www.accessscience.com/content/a-big-analysis-of-environmental-data-strengthens-the-case-for-plant-based-diets/SN1806061.
In this article, the author provides a strong case for how a plant-based diet is a more sustainable lifestyle than consuming animal products in terms of its environmental impacts. Milius has compiled various data and statistics regarding animal agriculture’s high rates of greenhouse gas emissions and heavy contributions to the world’s carbon footprint, which would make for compelling information to include in my analysis, especially in employing a logical appeal. These statistics will function as a secondary source regarding the negative externalities of livestock and animal agriculture. Additionally, the information articulating the positive impacts of replacing animal products for something from a plant will provide a sturdy argument for the benefits of a vegan diet.
"Plant Protein and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Consumer and Nutrition Professional Attitudes and Perceptions." Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 3, 2021, pp. 1478. ProQuest, http://access.library.miami.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/plant-protein-based-meat-alternatives-consumer/docview/2486679027/se-2, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13031478.
This article is a case study on Australian consumers’ and nutritional professionals’ perceptions on plant protein, specifically plant-based meat alternatives. Among the results, both parties believed that following a plant-based diet promotes good nutrition and is more environmentally friendly, with 10% more of the consumers agreeing on the environmental aspect. It was found that most people have tried plant-based meat alternatives out of ethical concerns and animal welfare rather than for nutritional reasons. Additionally, consumers were much less likely than nutritional professionals to look for added vitamins and minerals or whole food/recognizable ingredients in these products. Finally, far fewer consumers were concerned with the protein and overall nutritional content of plant-based products than nutritional professionals. This information provides quite intriguing insight into how consumers do not prioritize or investigate the nutritional quality of vegan meat products in comparison with animal meat products. I can employ this information to discuss how consumers are not adequately educated about the health discrepancies and nutritional deficiencies of vegan products. It will also be interesting to note in my paper how consumers’ motives for trying plant-based substitutes are based primarily on environmental concerns rather than health ones. This secondary source will make for a good introduction into whether a plant-based diet is environmentally superior, and thus, aligns with society’s motives for trying vegan products.
Robicelli, Allison. “Is Plant-Based Meat Better for the Environment?” Reader’s Digest, 16 Dec. 2021, https://www.rd.com/article/plant-based-meats/.
This article cites multiple researchers and scientists to discuss the environmental and nutritional implications of consuming plant-based meat. The author shares some valuable statistics, stating that between 2,000 and 8,000 gallons of water are used to produce a single pound of beef, while only 300 gallons are needed to produce one pound of tofu. As stated in other articles, substantial portions of the world’s forests have been slashed to use for animal agriculture, meaning that replacing a proportional of meat in the diet with plant alternatives could free up cropland to feed more people or to repurpose for reforestation. Another heavy statistic is that plant meat uses 41 percent less land than fish farming, 77 percent less than pig farming, 82 percent less than poultry, and a whopping 98 percent less than beef. Conversely, plant meat isn’t perfect, as the industrial farming used in its production, particularly the use of tillage, destroys soil carbon which leads to climate change. More interestingly, neither Beyond Meat nor Impossible Foods, the world’s leading players in plant-based meat alternatives, have released information regarding their total carbon emissions across their operations. In terms of nutrition, plant meat offers a good source of fiber, folate, and iron, but less protein, zinc, and vitamin B12 than animal meat. It is also important to keep in mind that plant meat is highly processed; high-sugar sodas and Doritos are plant-based, but that does not mean that they’re healthy. This secondary source will be beneficial in my debrief of the environmental and nutritional profiles of plant-based meat and in my criticism of the media, especially regarding Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat products.
Singh, Meenakshi, et al. "Plant-Based Meat Analogue (PBMA) as a Sustainable Food: A Concise Review." European Food Research and Technology = Zeitschrift Für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung Und -Forschung.A, vol. 247, no. 10, 2021, pp. 2499-2526. ProQuest, http://access.library.miami.edu/loginurl=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/plant-based-meat-analogue-pbma-as-sustainable/docview/2575154355/se-2?accountid=14585, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00217-021-03810-1.
This study categorizes each subset of plant protein, describing their agricultural processes and environmental benefits, discusses the key ingredients and components of plant-based meat substitutes, as well as the production techniques, depicts the functionalities of protein-rich foods, and outlines the benefits and disadvantages of both animal protein and plant protein. The study explains how animal protein is considered the highest quality protein source, but consuming high quantities of red meat can lead to a shortened lifespan, as it enhances the risk of cardiovascular ailments. Conversely, plant proteins have more nutrients and fiber, but not all the vital amino acids (not a complete protein). Despite this fact, plant products are far healthier than their meat counterparts, as they pack more nutrients into fewer calories. These facts about the nutritional quality of animal vs. plant protein will be vital in discussing the benefits and downfalls of each diet, especially when compared to how plant-based proteins are advertised to consumers. In terms of environmental impact, the article explains that the land requirements for plant pulse farming are far less than for animal farming. Additionally, switching to a plant-based diet comes with a substantial decrease in water usage, thereby reducing food shortages which is pertinent for our ever-growing population. This informative secondary source will serve as greatly beneficial evidence for the claim that following a vegan lifestyle has superior environmental impacts, as well as for discussing the nutritional differences between plant and animal protein.
Credits:
Created with images by Yann Wirthor - "three cows standing in a field looking at camera" • airborne77 - "High protein food for body builders as meat, fish, dairy, eggs, buckwheat, oatmeal, nuts, bean, pumpkin seed and sunflower seed" • RHJ - "vegan burger, roasted and ready for consumption. Healthy and vegetarian life concept. meatless snack based on soy and chickpeas with fresh vegetables." • schankz - "Smoke from the factory pipes against the dawn of the sun" • splitov27 - "Old tv receiver with tv remote in red blue neon light. Retro wave, media" • Andrey Lapshin - "People in the auditorium during the performance. A theatrical production." • Farknot Architect - "Mockup image of woman's hands holding black mobile phone with blank desktop screen" • Yann Wirthor - "three cows standing in a field looking at camera"