What would really happen if the world went vegan?

Tatiana Škultétyová outlines the positive and negative implications of a global transition to veganism.

In 2017, a study by Global Data revealed that the number of people following a vegan diet in the US has risen by a shocking 600% in just three years. The upward trend has continued as producers in the western world have been pushed to create more vegan options, consequently making veganism more and more accessible. What seems like the beginning of a global dietary revolution has also spurred a number of studies on the wider impact of a worldwide shift towards veganism. While it still remains hard to imagine everyone eradicating animal produce from their lives (and that’s not just our diets, but also items like clothing and furniture), it is good to be spreading edification about the excessive consumption of animal products that has become the norm.

On one hand, we would see an immense decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, and a reduction in world hunger as grazing land would be replaced by crops, both of which would be celebrated. However, it would be naïve to see global veganism as the ultimate solution to all of our problems or that it would be an unproblematic transition without any downfalls. Just as other major revolutions had their darker sides, so would this one, despite what some would have us believe.   

The positive impact such a change would have on the environment has been thoroughly discussed and is essentially irrefutable. According to the UN, livestock farming is responsible for 14.5% of the total man-made greenhouse gas emissions and Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences has found that food-related emissions would decrease by 70% if we all switched to vegan diets. These environmental consequences go hand in hand with alleviating the pressures on global warming, potentially slowing it down.

Claims about the eradication of world hunger, on the other hand, might simply be too good to be true. There is certainly some number-based traction; grazing and feeding livestock requires not only large amounts of water and energy but also vast land areas, which could otherwise be used to grow crops for human consumption. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a plant eater’s diet requires 17 times less land than a carnivore’s. Additionally, a Harvard University Professor of Medicine, Dr Walt Willett, estimates that to eliminate world hunger today we would need around 40 million tons of food and we are currently using around 760 million tons just to feed livestock every year. It seems like a simple enough equation – if we switch to plant-based diets we will have enough food to feed the world. Of course, it is not that simple. 

One counterargument is that not all of the land being freed up is suitable for crop cultivation. While valid, it only concerns a relatively small portion of the land and we would still end up with more arable land than we have now. Arguably more important is the fact that we are already producing more food than needed to feed the entire world population, yet it does not necessarily reach those in need and we instead generate huge quantities of food waste (the EU, for instance, is estimated to be wasting 88 million tons of food every year). Therefore, even if massive grazing areas were freed up and fodder crops were replaced with grains for human consumption, it is questionable how much world hunger it could truly alleviate without thorough plans for redistribution to the parts of the world most in need (which would inevitably create additional costs). There is no denying that more food could and probably would be provided, but it seems unfair to put the solution to global starvation singularly on veganism as the problem is much more complex.

It is also imperative to be realistic about economic consequences. Most of the benefits are long-term, meaning that even if the whole world did decide to go vegan tomorrow, it would be decades before we would observe most of the positive effects. Immediate results would likely be less positive. In the UK alone there are over 90,000 agricultural livestock businesses, most of which focus solely on livestock production. Businesses like these would lose income and potentially go into administration, leading to mass unemployment in the sector.

Due to the focus on livestock, these businesses often do not operate on land that could be transformed into crop production and therefore the transition could be lengthy and painful, especially without government intervention. Moreover, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, livestock contributes to the livelihoods of around 1.7 billion poor people. For them, arguably the most vulnerable groups, this transition could be devastating and could even lead to an increase in poverty. Of course, some of these issues could be mitigated if the global transition is managed well, but considering these impacts is necessary preparation.

Another important consideration is the nutritional quality of a vegan diet. While in general a plant-based diet, as the name itself suggests, involves large quantities of fresh produce and may be healthier than other lifestyles, it is not necessarily so. With the growing popularity of veganism, huge numbers of vegan alternative foods have sprung up, including highly processed alternative ‘meat’ or fast food options. It’s possible to have an unhealthy vegan diet, which might seem more attractive to many who are not used to eating large quantities of vegetables or are not ready to give up the taste of meat just yet.

These vegan alternatives may also provide less nutrients, especially when compared with bean or veggie patties. In general, it can be difficult for many to consume enough calcium, iron, zinc, Vitamin D or omega-3 fatty acids and even the healthiest of vegan diets makes it hard to obtain sufficient vitamin B12 without supplementation. That is not to say that it cannot be done when following a balanced diet. It ought, however, to stand as a reminder that going vegan should be a well-thought-out rather than a spur-of-the-moment decision, as it might require more planning to ensure we are getting all the necessary nutrients.

Ultimately, it is not the purpose of this article to condemn veganism whatsoever; as pointed out, it would have a widely beneficial effect on the environment, not to mention the ethics of ending animal suffering. Nevertheless, it is crucial to provide a balanced account instead of claiming that all problems would miraculously be solved. Such a drastic change of diet should always be preceded by thorough contemplation and judged on a case-by-case basis as it might not be suitable for everyone. We should absolutely be trying to reduce our animal product consumption, but we must be prepared to not see changes overnight - perhaps not even in our lifetime. 

Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.