Excluding meat from diet is a non-scientifically justified choice. If made for environmental reasons, it must be contextualized in a broader set of behaviours.

“I don’t eat meat for environmental reasons.” Do you have a friend who replied like that to a barbecue invitation and asked for a veggie burger? Not consuming meat is a very impactful choice on the lifestyle and health of an individual and, if extended to the community, on the gastronomic economy and on the conservation of the typical elements of a people’s tradition. A choice that is not scientifically justified and that in any case, if made for environmental reasons, must be contextualized in a broader set of behaviours.

We make numerous trips by car when we can travel by bicycle or on foot, we use purchase packaging in plastic or non-recyclable cardboard for shopping. We are bad at recycling and we trash food that can still be consumed, change clothes that are still usable because they are now out of fashion … how can we consider ourselves sustainable?

As individuals, we can improve our environmental impact, starting from small gestures which, however, do not generate a clear change in our lifestyle and our diet, respecting our nutritional needs.

A study published in Ecological Economics compares different lifestyles in order to estimate environmental and local environmental footprints for soil, water, climate and toxicity potential for humans. In this regard, the study considers the impacts generated by choices related to clothing, buildings, diet and its characteristics, equipment / tools used, mobility (type of means of transport, travel by plane …), recreational services, energy services.

The authors, through consultations with stakeholders, constructed 19 possible scenarios that represented a clear reduction of impacts to only what was necessary (sufficiency option) and 17 scenarios that could be categorized as “green” (green option). The first of the two options entailed greater mitigation on the impacts of transport, services and clothing, while the green option showed greater results for food and manufacturing products.

With reference to the diet, among the scenarios with the greatest positive effects on the environment, the “food sufficiency” is listed, which limits the consumption of food to 2586 Kcal / day, thus reducing the average European surplus (which is 27%), and the “anti-waste” diet, with a 12% reduction in the economic value of spending.

Here emerges a first result of the study: the most painless conversion from one’s diet is that of a “sufficiency” diet: the same habits are maintained and the caloric surpluses are eliminated. The result would be remarkable: -4.9% of carbon emissions, -14.4% of soil consumption and -16% of water consumption. If we add to this the reduction in waste (-2.1% of carbon emissions, -5.5% of soil consumption and -7.1% of water consumption) we obtain a diet that is significantly less impacting than the current European average, without giving up your eating habits and nutritional quality. Among the desirable changes is the least expensive one, both economically and in terms of time.

Other food scenarios analysed are the Mediterranean diet (which also includes wine), the “healthy vegan“, which eliminates processed food, sugars and drinks other than water, the diet with at least 50% of local food, that with organic food only, and the diet with seasonal food only: the environmental results of the conversion to these scenarios vary from zero or more impactful results to an environmental gain of 3.6% in the case of greenhouse gas emissions and harmful substances for humans.

Again according to the study published in Ecological Economics, vegan diets would allow the carbon footprint to be reduced by up to 14% and the water footprint by up to 15%, (instead, a reduction by 6.4% and 0.2% it would be achieved with a vegetarian diet), and therefore with the total replacement of meat and fish with food of vegetable origin, milk, dairy products and eggs. But a universal conversion of the food style of billions of people would have impacts on land use that do not seem to be as sustainable. This is stated by some American researchers who, in a study published in Elementa, report that diets that include modest meat consumption have a better performance in terms of production capacity (people fed per unit of soil) than vegan diets.

The study in fact distinguishes the production capacity of the soils on the basis of their intrinsic characteristics and therefore makes an analysis of production efficiency in terms of the number of people who can be fed by a given surface and type of soil. Basically, different types of land are needed to produce different types of food, and not all diets benefit equally from these soils. First of all, when assessing land consumption in relation to agriculture, it is necessary to differentiate the grazing land which is often unsuitable for cultivation, from the purely agricultural land.

Faced with an effective need to reduce environmental impacts, it is necessary to contextualize the indications suitable for this reduction, on the basis of what is more or less feasible. The Ecological Economics study reports very interesting results on several sectors: it makes us reflect on the fact that a reduction in mobility and the adoption of means of transport, with a greater number of hours dedicated to smart-working (and consequent reduction of 50% of the use of cars), the use of bicycles and travel (where possible) on foot, for example would reduce the climate footprint by 9 and 26% respectively; high-tech villages and neighbourhoods with passive homes powered by renewable sources would reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by up to 8%.

And yet, a “collaborative” economy, therefore with a greater presence of volunteering, time banks, and exchange of goods within the community, would reduce carbon emissions by 17.8%, the consumption of soil and the water footprint of 15.8% (not strictly pertinent to the study is assessing the social and economic impacts that such choices would produce).

In short, if I eat a veggie burger, but I travel by car without car-sharing, I often travel by plane for pleasure only, I trash 20% of the food I buy, I prefer to follow fashion and change my clothing continuously, I can’t certainly say that I have a sustainable lifestyle.

It is a matter of balance.