top of page

Debunking the Myths: Eating Less Meat Won't Save the Planet - Know the Truth about Meat and the Environment

Writer's picture:  Lubna Nazarani Lubna Nazarani

Updated: 6 days ago


A cow in a green field with mountains in the back

Lately, it seems that everyone is hating on meat: cows are increasing global warming with their burps, eating all our food, hogging all the land that we could use for other crops, and using up all our water. If we would cut back on meat, or go vegan, we could save our planet and ourselves. “Meatless Monday” and “Vegan Friday” initiatives are popping up everywhere, especially in schools.


As a nutritionist, I first observed this trend with mild disdain, but as the drumbeat gets louder, and the messaging is picking up momentum, I’m increasingly alarmed and bewildered. I’d like to explain, if you’ll gift me with a few minutes of your attention, why most of these claims and initiatives are misguided and aren’t real solutions to the climate crisis. I’ll also share some ways that we can heal the environment and try to dig ourselves out of this mess.


Let’s start with the biggest claim – that the livestock sector is responsible for 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Although this number is technically accurate, it's a bait-and-switch that conveniently focuses our attention on the wrong thing. For one, it does not reflect the huge regional differences amongst countries and how efficiencies in Western countries have reduced emissions, while increasing production. For example, in the US the livestock sector is only 3.9% of emissions, of which cattle are responsible for only 2%. TWO PERCENT (EPA, 2023). Conveniently, that number never makes the headlines. The numbers are very similar in the UK (3.7%) and Canada, one of the largest beef and dairy producers, (3.3%)., As a matter of fact, US crop agriculture is responsible for more emissions, at 4.7%. Cutting meat increases other emissions. To that end, if the entire American population actively participated in Meatless Monday, we would reduce US emissions by 0.3%.  If the entire US population became vegan, all 300+ million, we would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2.6%. That's it.


India is the world’s largest dairy producer, with 200+ million cows, yet produces only a fraction of milk per cow than the US does with its 9 million dairy cows. And British beef and lamb are sustainability champs, thanks to their grass-based systems actually acting as a carbon sink. This is the kind of necessary nuance missed with global stats. Eating less meat in countries that have some of the best livestock efficiencies in the world is not going to move the needle on global emissions.  The global average gives us nothing to focus on or work with – the 15% number thrown around is really a smokescreen from other, far more destructive players.

"If the entire US participated in “Meatless Mondays,” our emissions would decrease by 0.3%"

The World Bank has over 1 billion in livestock investments, the majority of which are in Africa, South Asia and Central Asia. This is with the aim of moving these fast-growing sub-sectors toward more sustainable practices like those in the west in order to address inefficiencies while also supporting “improved contribution to human diets.” Many are unaware of the central role that livestock play in food security, nutrient security, livelihoods and even gender equality in the developing world. 


Woman in colorful sari holds buffalo in rural setting. Mud houses in background, earthy tones, calm expression.

Those in the West cannot dictate to the rest of the world what they can and cannot eat. Choosing alternative, plant-based meats and milks is a luxury that not all the world has. So when talking about GHGs, focus must be regional.


Cattle herds in the US and UK have been steady for the past couple of decades. And red meat consumption has been decreasing steadily over the past several decades in all Western countries. Yet emissions continue to rise. Doesn’t that alone point to the fact that the real players are hiding in plain sight? Does it make sense to focus all our attention and energy toward decreasing meat consumption while turning a blind eye to the energy, transportation, and construction industries that are continuing to increase emissions year after year? China, the US, EU, and Canada are infamous peers in the ‘Top Ten’ green house gas emitters list. (India is too, but only because of sheer population, not when you look at per capita emissions). The Top Ten emit two-thirds of global greenhouse gases. The bottom 100 countries combined, contribute 2.9%. Clearly, the key burden is on the West, (and China), not the rest of the developing world. And the overwhelming majority is coming from fossil fuel consumption, not cattle.


Industrial plant with tall smokestacks emitting thick, dark smoke. Dramatic orange and yellow sky sets an ominous mood.

Myth: Land Use

But don’t just take my word for it. I want to go over the common complaints made about meat production so that we can hopefully set aside the misplaced indignation and focus our efforts on the real perpetrators. Let’s start with land use. One argument is that so much land is wasted on grazing when we could instead use that land to grow more crops for humans. Well, let’s break it down.


The truth is, we can’t just pick and choose where we want to grow crops. Two-thirds of all agricultural land in the world is marginal. This means crops can’t grow on it. It is either too hilly, too rocky, too hot, too cold, too dry, too wet, too poor quality, or there isn’t enough water. The only thing capable of growing on marginal lands is grass and brush. And the only way to produce any food on marginal lands is by using grazing animals because they can eat grass and up-cycle it into highly nutritious meat and dairy. And to that point, the majority of the 4.6 million hectares of land currently allocated to cattle in the United Kingdom is only suited to grazing livestock. If ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, bison, etc.) are removed from marginal lands, it doesn’t mean we will be able to grow crops on it. The remaining one-third of agricultural land is arable land, meaning we can grow crops on it. And we do.

Fossil fuels contribute over 80% of US emissions; livestock contribute 3.9%

Myth: Deforestation

And as for cows being culpable for deforestation in Brazil, let’s look at the research. Although most graphs show pasture taking up large portions of newly deforested land, one of the key drivers is actually increased soy production. It is soy that is taking over existing pasture, pushing cattle further into forested areas, and inadvertently increasing the value of the land. “As such, the high numbers presented for forest area replaced by cattle may not be the result of direct demand for beef or dairy production but rather due to displacement caused by other crops or speculation” [emphasis mine].


Tree stump in a deforested area with scattered branches and debris. Pine trees line the horizon under a clear sky, conveying desolation.

Brazil’s infamous beef industry supplies mostly to China and the Middle East.  The UK is 91% self-sufficient in dairy production and 86% self-sufficient in beef. The rest comes from Ireland and other EU countries. The US is similar: 92% self-sufficient. The majority of the rest is from Canada and Mexico.  Canada has a huge beef industry and supplies an overwhelming portion of its country’s own beef, with trade between the US supplying much of the rest. This is why regional realities are so critical understand. Our consumption of less meat in the US, Canada, or UK will never be substantive enough to change Brazilian deforestation policies. This needs to happen at an international policy level that is beyond western consumer practices.


Cracked dry earth with a network of deep fissures, showcasing shades of brown and gray, conveying a sense of aridness and drought.

Myth: Water Use

Another common complaint is that beef requires so much water - a pound of beef supposedly takes 1,800 gallons of water to produce. However, this is incredibly misleading. When it comes to agriculture, there are three types of water: green water, blue water, and gray water. Green water is basically rainwater. Blue water is water from lakes, streams, and underground. Gray water is wastewater; it’s the amount required to dilute pollutants. Beef production uses 94% green water, that percentage is even higher for grass-fed beef. Meaning that that rain would fall on that land regardless of whether there were cows on it or not. Less than 1% of water used for beef production is “blue” water, coming from ground water.


To attribute such high amounts of water to beef production without clarifying the source or type of water is disingenuous and intentionally deceptive.  Not only that, but as you and I know, when we drink water, it doesn’t stay inside us forever. The same is true for cows. That water returns to the land in the form of urine, which provides moisture, minerals, and necessary nitrogen for the soil.


The bigger concern we should have for water use is the freshwater used for irrigation. For example, California provides much of the produce in the US, and all of its almonds, but 95% of the water used for almond crops is blue water – it’s coming from aquifers and groundwater. Sixty percent of the water used for crops in the US is ground water. 70% of the world’s freshwater reserves go toward irrigation of crops. Rice, the most common food staple that feeds almost half the world’s population, uses up to 30% of the world’s ground water. Everything has a environmental  burden.


Myth: Livestock Feed

Well, what about all the grain that goes to feeding animal livestock? Claims are made that over 60% of corn grown is fed to cattle instead of hungry humans. Really? Is that true? According the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, over 84% of what is fed to livestock (cattle, chickens, pigs, goats, etc.) is inedible by humans. Humans cannot eat or digest 84% of what is fed to livestock. Why?

Green combine harvester cutting through a beige wheat field, creating a cloud of dust. The machine is prominent against the expansive monochrome crops lending a sense of lifelessness

The majority of what is fed to livestock is crop residue and byproducts. When you harvest a soybean or a stalk of corn, the actual human-edible component is very small compared to the rest of the plant. The stalks, soybean skins, the shells, the oat hulls, almond hulls, corn cobs, the straw, inedible seeds, etc. of all the various crops grown are handed over to the livestock industry as feed for the animals.

By eating all this crop residue, livestock up-cycle what would otherwise become 43 billion kilograms of waste for our landfills, into high-quality protein. The 16% that is human edible is mostly fed to chickens and pigs, not cattle, because the digestive system of the former is less able to break down the tough cellulose in these residues.


Myth: Methane Burps

What about the infamous cow burps?  Cows release methane gas when they burp. Methane is a greenhouse gas that has greater warming potential than even carbon. The amount that comes from cows is 2.7% of total GHGs in the US and 2.7% of Canada’s GHGs., Again, not nothing, but hardly reason to start culling herds as some groups are promoting. More to the point: are those burps really adding more carbon to the environment? To answer that, let’s take a quick trip back to 7th grade Biology class and talk about the carbon cycle.


As we know plants ‘inhale’ carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and, along with sunlight, use it to make food for themselves, aka photosynthesis. When cows eat plants, they ingest the carbon that was bound up in the plants’ fibers. As part of digestion, the carbon is released back to the air in the form of methane from cow burps. After about 10-12 years, that methane breaks down into carbon dioxide and water. At that point, the cycle is complete, and the carbon dioxide is again returned to the atmosphere where it originally came from. It is not new carbon being added to the atmosphere.


Diagram of the biogenic carbon cycle with a cow, showing CO2 and CH4 exchange. Includes grass, sun, and text on photosynthesis and oxidation.

This means that if cowherds are not increased, and herds in the US, Canada, UK and EU have remained mostly the same, with minor variations, then no new carbon is being added to the air. It is simply the same carbon moving in the same cycle as it has been for millennia.

Carbon from cow burps is not adding new carbon to the atmosphere; it is part of the natural carbon cycle

Carbon from fossil fuels however, is a different story. That carbon is pulled from deep within the earth and is being added to the environment. There is no cycle here. It is a one-way, additive process. And it is destroying us and our planet.


Destroying the Soil

Further, what proponents of the ‘more plants, less meat’ narrative fail to share is that industrial plant agriculture destroys topsoil. By removing animals from the land and growing miles and miles of single-crop fields, we are ravaging the earth. The soil is a living, breathing, growing entity. It is hungry and needs nourishment just like every other living thing on this planet. Soil gets its nourishment from the nutrients and microbes from cow (and other ruminants’) manure. As they trample the ground, they protect the soil, reintegrate nutrients into it, and over time, they actually build new soil. This increases the amount of water the soil can hold, which protects the land from drought. By well-managed grazing, the land can actually rebuild and store carbon, keeping it out of the atmosphere. As a matter of fact, many conservationists see grasslands as more important for carbon sequestration and storage than forests.


Dumping increasing amounts of synthetic, fossil-fuel-based fertilizer is not growing the soil; it is rapidly degenerating it. Fossil-fuel fertilizers are a major source of emissions in plant agriculture because we have removed animals from the equation. To think that our health is separate from soil health is a topic for another conversation. But just know that we cannot have such degraded soil and expect to have health for ourselves. The current disease burdens across the UK, EU, Canada, and US are evidence of that.


Necessary Nutrition

I'm planning to write a more in-depth article on the irreplaceable nutrients we get from animal foods, but here's the bottom line: Everything has an environmental burden. For that reason, the conversation should be more nuanced and connected to the value that food provides to the health and well-being of humans. Wouldn’t a more thoughtful approach be to consider which foods provide the most necessary nutrients per calorie, in the most bio-available forms? Meat and dairy are ancestral foods. They are the foods that made us human, that allowed our brains to grow to the disproportionately large size it currently is, compared to our next, nearest relative in the animal kingdom., They provide necessary nutrients that simply cannot be sourced in adequate amounts from plant foods. For many in the developing world, it is the best source of key nutrients for pregnant women, growing children, and aging seniors. To vilify whole, natural foods that have been a part of the human diet since we first graced this planet millions of years ago, is ignorant and elitist at best and reckless at worst.


As a matter of fact, if we were to cut out animal agriculture, our emissions would actually increase, because there would be an attendant rise in crop production, more synthetic fertilizer production and use, and an increase in crop waste going to landfills instead of getting fed to livestock.


Yes, we need solutions to the climate crisis, and yes, animal agriculture absolutely needs reform in many aspects. However, cutting back on meat and disparaging its consumption are not the answer. Did you know that over 40% of all food in the US is wasted? In Canada, the number is an unfathomable 60%.  And for whatever reason, almost half of the fresh potatoes in the UK are thrown away everyday, untouched. That amounts to almost 6 million potatoes per day. If food waste were a country, it would be the third highest emitter, after the US and China. This has a huge environmental impact, aside from the ethical issues that I don’t have time or space to get into. If we just stopped wasting food, that alone would be a massive decrease in greenhouse gas emissions across all these nations.


Worker in safety gear sorts large piles of discarded produce in warehouse. Colors of fruits and vegetables are vibrant and speak volumes about the levels of waste. More boxes for waste are stacked nearby.
Over 40% of food in the US is wasted, contributing to over 8% of US emissions.

So let’s stop wasting food for starters. Here are some other food-related suggestions that you can make a real impact with starting today:


1 – Shrink your food’s supply chain. Buy local, at least within 50-100 miles. More than 50% of our fruit is imported from other countries. Do we really need berries from Peru in December? Think of the fossil fuel cost of transport and refrigeration. Instead shop at local farmer’s markets and limit yourself to local and seasonal foods.


2 – Knowing where your food comes from and where it is grown brings us closer to understanding our role in the local ecosystem. We are not outside the system, despite how much control or “power” we seem to wield over the land. Know the farmers who grow your food. This supports small businesses, local economies and supports sustainable agriculture, all while saving on transport and refrigeration demands for foods imported from far-flung places.


3 – Start a small garden in your yard or community. We are so disconnected from how food is grown and sourced that we do not understand the complexities of food ecosystems. Growing our own food also prevents food wastage as we tend to value what is grown by our own hands.


4 – Support local, regenerative farms with your business. Regenerative agriculture is the most effective, best solution we have to regenerating our soil, sequestering tons of carbon back into the ground, and creating healthy, nutrient-dense food systems that nourish us and nourish our planet. Check out Allan Savory and his non-profit, the Savory Institute or look into J.I. Rodale and the Rodale Institute to learn about real, actionable steps we can take today to improve not only the health of our planet, but the health of humanity.


If you’ve stayed with me this far, thank you. Really. I hope, after reading this, you walk away with the knowledge that cutting back on meat in the West is not going to get us to our climate goals. And know that the truth has been intentionally buried regarding meat and the environment. And asking the developing world to cut back on such necessary nutrients is unfair and misguided. Let’s focus the spotlight where it really needs to be, and that’s on our fossil fuel consumption.


ENDNOTES:

1 Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G.(2013). Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/

2 EPA (2023). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, EPA 430-R-23-002. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-andsinks-1990-2021.

3 “The Facts About British Red Meat and Dairy.” (February 2020). https://www.nfuonline.com/archive?treeid=141504

4 Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Indicator. (June 25, 2021). Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Government of Canada. https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/agricultural-production/agricultural-greenhouse-gas-indicator

5 National Inventory Report 1990-2018: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada: Canada’s Submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2020). Environment and Climate Change Canada. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2020/eccc/En81-4-1-2018-eng.pdf

6 White, R. R., & Hall, M. B. (2017). Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), E10301-E10308.

7 White, R. R., & Hall, M. B. (2017). Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), E10301-E10308.

8 Landes, M. and Cessna, J. (June 2017). “Changes in Herd Composition a Key to Indian Dairy Production.” USDA Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/june/changes-in-herd-composition-a-key-to-indian-dairy-production/

9 Myrgiotis, V., Smallman, T. L., & Williams, M. (2022). The carbon budget of the managed grasslands of Great Britain–informed by earth observations. Biogeosciences, 19(17), 4147-4170.

10 “Moving Towards Sustainability: The Livestock Sector and the World Bank.” (Oct. 18, 2021). www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/moving-towards-sustainability-the-livestock-sector-and-the-world-bank

11 “Moving Towards Sustainability: The Livestock Sector and the World Bank.” (Oct. 18, 2021). www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/moving-towards-sustainability-the-livestock-sector-and-the-world-bank

12 Frédéric Leroy, Frits Heinrich, Michael R. F. Lee & Kim Willems (2023) Meat matters - making the case for a valuable food in a hostile environment, Italian Journal of Animal Science, 22:1, 885-897, DOI: 10.1080/1828051X.2023.2221696

13 Meat (2021). United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. https://www.fao.org/3/cb5332en/Meat.pdf

14 EIA expects U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to increase in 2022 and 2023. (January 2020). US Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50958

15 EIA expects U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to increase in 2022 and 2023. (January 2020). US Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50958

16 Freidrich, J. et al. (March 2, 2023). This Interactive Chart Shows Changes in the World's Top 10 Emitters World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes-worlds-top-10-emitters

17 Freidrich, J. et al. (March 2, 2023). This Interactive Chart Shows Changes in the World's Top 10 Emitters World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes-worlds-top-10-emitters

18 “Testing the water: The English beef and sheep production environmental roadmap phase two.” (2013). Agriculture and Horticulture Board. https://projectblue.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Research Papers/Beef & Lamb/p_cp_testingthewater061210.pdf

19 Deforestation Linked to Agriculture. World Resources Institute. https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/deforestation-agriculture

20 “The Facts About British Red Meat and Dairy.” (February 2020). NFUonline. https://www.nfuonline.com/archive?treeid=141504

21 Darnton, J. (August 2014). “Where does beef come from? Part 1 - A Geographic Perspective.” Michigan State University Extension. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_does_beef_come_from_part_1_a_geographic_perspective#:~:text=Most cattle that eventually make, landing closer to 8 percent.

22 Covid-19 and Beef Supply Chain. (December 2020). Statistics Canada https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-28-0001/2020001/article/00086-eng.htm#

23 Delynko, K. (February 2019). “What’s the beef with water?” Denver Water. https://www.denverwater.org/tap/whats-beef-water?size=n_21_n

24 P.W. Gerbens-Leenes, M.M. Mekonnen, A.Y. Hoekstra, (2013). “The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems.” Water Resources andIndustry, Volumes 1–2, Pages 25-36, ISSN 2212-3717, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2013.03.001. and

“Beef is Not a Water Hog.” Global Food Justice Alliance .https://www.globalfoodjustice.org/environment/blog-post-title-three-s6f8a

25 “The Facts About British Red Meat and Dairy.” (February 2020). https://www.nfuonline.com/archive?treeid=141504

26 Rotz, C. A., Asem-Hiablie, S., Place, S., & Thoma, G. (2019). Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States. Agricultural systems, 169, 1-13.

27 Scanlon, B. R., Faunt, C. C., Longuevergne, L., Reedy, R. C., Alley, W. M., McGuire, V. L., & McMahon, P. B. (2012). Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 109(24), 9320-9325.

28 Siebert, S., Burke, J., Faures, J. M., Frenken, K., Hoogeveen, J., Döll, P., & Portmann, F. T. (2010). Groundwater use for irrigation–a global inventory. Hydrology and earth system sciences, 14(10), 1863-1880.

29 Bouman, B. A., Humphreys, E., Tuong, T. P., & Barker, R. (2007). Rice and water. Advances in agronomy, 92, 187-237.

30 Grote, Ulrike & Faße, Anja & Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Erenstein, Olaf. (2021). Food Security and the Dynamics of Wheat and Maize Value Chains in Africa and Asia. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 617009. 10.3389/fsufs.2020.617009.

31 Mottet, A. Cees de Haan, Falcucci, A. Tempio, G., Opio, C., Gerber, P. (2017). Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Global Food Security,Volume 14. Pages 1-8, ISSN 2211-9124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001.

32 Smith, G. (July 24, 2020). US dairy cows upcycle up to 306M pounds of food waste every day. https://www.darigold.com/us-dairy-cows-upcycle-up-to-306m-pounds-of-food-waste-every-day/

33 EPA (2023). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, EPA 430-R-23-002. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-andsinks-1990-2021.

34 Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Indicator. (June 25, 2021). Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Government of Canada. https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/agricultural-production/agricultural-greenhouse-gas-indicator

35 Methane has been the Achille’s heel for cattle emissions, but it may be part of a climate solution. (November 4, 2020). CLEAR Center, UC Davis. https://clear.ucdavis.edu/news/methane-has-been-achilles-heel-cattle-emissions-it-may-be-part-climate-solution

36 EPA (2023). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, EPA 430-R-23-002. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-andsinks-1990-2021.

37 Faye, J. B., & Braun, Y. A. (2022). Soil and human health: Understanding agricultural and socio-environmental risk and resilience in the age of climate change. Health & Place, 77, 102799.

38 Teague, R., & Kreuter, U. (2020). Managing grazing to restore soil health, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 157.

39 Boyce, M. (December 2019). “Adapting Grassland Grazing to Boost Carbon Sequestration.” Scientia. https://www.scientia.global/dr-mark-boyce-adapting-grassland-grazing-to-boost-carbon-sequestration/

40 Galloway, J. N., Aber, J. D., Erisman, J. W., Seitzinger, S. P., Howarth, R. W., Cowling, E. B., & Cosby, B. J. (2003). The Nitrogen Cascade. BioScience, 53(4), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0341:TNC]2.0.CO;2

41 Lehmann J, Bossio DA, Kögel-Knabner I, Rillig MC. The concept and future prospects of soil health. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 2020 Oct;1(10):544-553. doi: 10.1038/s43017-020-0080-8. Epub 2020 Aug 25. PMID: 33015639; PMCID: PMC7116140.

42 Diseases with the highest burden in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2019.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1296950/burden-of-disease-uk-by-cause/#:~:text=Burden of diseases in the UK, 2019, by cause&text=In 2019, cancers and cardiovascular, burden in the European Union

43 Gunja, M., Gumas, E., Williams, R. (January 2023). U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2022: Accelerating Spending, Worsening Outcomes. The Commonwealth Fund. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2022#:~:text=The U.S. has the highest,hospital beds per 1,000 population.

44 Ben-Dor, M., Gopher, A., Hershkovitz, I., & Barkai, R. (2011). Man the fat hunter: the demise of Homo erectus and the emergence of a new hominin lineage in the Middle Pleistocene (ca. 400 kyr) Levant. PLoS One, 6(12), e28689.

45 Ben‐Dor, M., Sirtoli, R., & Barkai, R. (2021). The evolution of the human trophic level during the Pleistocene. American journal of physical anthropology, 175, 27-56.

46 FAO makes case for meat, eggs and milk as ‘essential source of nutrients.’ (2023, April 25). UNNews - Global Perspective Human Stories. https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/04/1135972

47 White, R. R., & Hall, M. B. (2017). Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), E10301-E10308.

48 Domingues, J. (October 10, 2023). “Canada’s Food Waste Problem is Out of Control. Here’s How to Break the Cycle.” Macleans Magazine.  https://macleans.ca/food-insecurity/flashfood-solves-food-waste/

49 Smithers, R. (November 8, 2017). “Nearly half of all fresh potatoes thrown away daily by UK households.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/08/nearly-half-of-all-fresh-potatoes-thrown-away-daily-by-uk-households

50 Mitloehner, F. (2020, November 13). “The Carbon Impact of Food Waste: The Problem WithWhat We’re Not Eating.” GHG Guru Blog. UC Davis CLEAR Center.https://clear.ucdavis.edu/blog/carbon-impact-food-waste-problem-what-were-not-eating

51 Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change - A Down to Earth Solution to Global Warming. (October 30, 2019). Rodale Institute. https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/rodale-white-paper.pdf

52 Regenerative Agriculture and the Soil-Carbon Solution. (October 6, 2020). Rodale Institute.  https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Rodale-Soil-Carbon-White-Paper_v11-compressed.pdf

53 The Savory Institute. https://savory.global/

54 The Rodale Institute. https://rodaleinstitute.org/


131 views0 comments

Comments


Certified Nutrition Specialist®

Certified GAPS Practitioner

Nutrition and Integrative Health Specialist

COPYRIGHT 2024

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
Badge of a Certified GAPS Practitioner
ANA-Strategy-Logo-Cert-CNS.jpeg

Medical Disclaimer

THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE

The information, including but not limited to, text, graphics, images, and other material contained on this website are for informational purposes only.

The purpose of this website is to promote broad consumer understanding and knowledge of various health topics. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment and before undertaking a new health care regimen, and never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website.

Nutrition Therapy by Lubna does not recommend or endorse any specific tests, physicians, procedures, opinions or other information that may be mentioned on this website. Any product or supplement recommendations should be reviewed with your health care provider. Reliance on any information appearing on this website is solely at your own risk.

bottom of page