Tofu is actually more damaging to the planet than meat,

Post Reply New Topic

Meat is often derided as one of the most environmentally damaging foods to consume, but new research is leading some farmers to claim that tofu could actually be worse.

This is despite studies showing that following a vegan diet could be the "single biggest way" to reduce your environmental impact on earth.

Speaking at the National Farmers Union (NFU) on Monday, Dr. Graham McAuliffe of the Rothamsted Institute explained that his unpublished research on tofu has found that the soya-based protein could have a more drastic impact on the planet than beef, pork, and chicken.

Dr. McAuliffe, who specializes in measuring the environmental impact of foods, pointed out that his findings should be "interpreted with caution" given they were currently just a "proof of concept," reports The Times.

"Without a doubt, peas and ground nuts always have a lower environmental impact than any livestock products," he said.

"But if you look at tofu, which is processed so there is more energy going into its production, when you correct for the fact that the protein in it is not as digestible compared to the meat-based products, you can see that it could actually have a higher global warming potential than any of the monogastric animals.

"To get the same amount of protein, tofu is worse."​

This needs a link to the source.

The parts you cited contain at least one contradiction/unclear bit: near the beginning, it says tofu could be having a bigger impact than beef, and at the end, it says tofu could have a higher impact than meat from monogastric animals - i.e. not beef.

Also: the usual caution needs to be applied: one study isn't an awful lot, the scientist may be a meat-lobby shill, etc.

We'll see.
Animal wellfare is still a thing, though, regardless.

The guy in the OP is talking, but he fails to say anything.

Tofu may need to be "processed", but so does flesh from slaughtered livestock.

And there are no stats cited. No data. No nada.

Sounds like farmer-driven "research finds" propaganda. There will always be fringe sell-out scientists who take the money and tell the lies, but they are very tiny in number.

For the record:
Researchers at the University of Oxford found in 2018 that cutting meat and dairy products from your diet could reduce an individual's carbon footprint from food by up to 73 per cent.

Sounds like farmer-driven "research finds" propaganda. There will always be fringe sell-out scientists who take the money and tell the lies, but they are very tiny in number.

For the record:
Researchers at the University of Oxford found in 2018 that cutting meat and dairy products from your diet could reduce an individual's carbon footprint from food by up to 73 per cent.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new ... -cost-food

https://www.businessinsider.com/tofu-wo ... ?r=AU&IR=T

British farmers hit back at veganism yesterday as they showcased research that suggests eating tofu is worse for the planet than consuming most meats.

At a conference in London, the National Farmers Union (NFU) presented academics and scientists who argued that a meat-free diet could be unhealthy, create more emissions and damage the ecosystem.

One of the speakers, Graham McAuliffe, of the Rothamsted Institute, talked about unpublished work that suggests tofu, a protein substitute made from soy milk, has a worse impact on global warming than lamb, pork and chicken.

I don't believe this article. All other sources, I looked at, show tofu to be much low carbon footprint than even chicken.

I still think the cow's gotta go. I had Beyond Burgers for dinner tonite .

The title of that article includes the words "according to farmers". Farmers are generally not scientists, and they work in a profit driven industry, which is under pressure as awareness of its harms is now much better known and understood.

Why do you believe it? (If you do believe it).

Are you involved in the industry?

I wonder how many people who talk about carbon footprints eat meat and drive internal combustion vehicles etc.

If enough people stop being consumers of such, those industries will diminish and fade away.

Kiwis are already consuming much less meat than in former years, according to the latest statistics. This is likely to accelerate, not only because of the climate effects but because farming practices have polluted our once pristine rivers and waterways. Legislation has been enacted to stop farmers pouring waste loaded with nitrogen into our waterways but monitoring all of the waterways is not easily done. We have a great deal of waterways and farming animals is a huge industry here. It will become less so as diversification continues and expands.

As for cars, battery issues which need to addressed by EV manufacturers are one of the main barriers to more take up, as the batteries are very expensive to replace and defects have been well identified.

More and more New Zealanders are refusing to buy pork (in particular) because of the disgusting conditions that these animals suffer, in cages, by commercial pork farmers. The government tries to monitor this disgrace but the problem is greater than the capacity to police it. Not all pork farmers are this inhumane however. The pictures of the animals who are abused like this are truly heartbreaking to people who care about animal welfare.

This is bad journalism. The scientist in question says that people shouldn’t get carried away, that his results are preliminary, and that his research is not yet published, but the machine reports on his claims anyway and misrepresents them with sensationalist headlines.

Have lots more to say about the wider agricultural industry but will leave it there for now.