Fantastic summary! I would almost use the word “unbelievable,” but these benefits are all consistent with previous research, and extensive (very conservative) reports of the balance of evidence such as the IPCC reports.
I really appreciate the utility analysis too (converting research findings into dollar estimates), because ideally that can assist policymakers in decision making. Ideally. 😒
The mechanisms are all pretty well understood too—this isn’t speculative—which is why I tend to lean into even more optimistic figures. Within a plant-exclusive diet, as the proportion of whole foods increases, the benefits continue to increase and the risk of certain issues such as cardiovascular disease approaches zero.
So in addition to de-subsidizing meat, dairy, eggs, and fish and subsidizing food for humans, we could theoretically go even further by internalizing the externalized societal costs of the consumption of many packaged and processed foods. The cost of palm oil should reflect the environmental cost of felling rainforests and clogging arteries.
Because the data are so lopsided, any rational and evidence-based proposal will sound extreme. $50 hamburgers!?!?
But actually, yes. And we haven’t even talked about valuing the lives of billions of sentient beings.
It remains important to separate the chaff from the wheat. From a nutritional standpoint, the relevant concept is T. Colin Campbell's Whole Foods, Plant-Based diet.
Veganism and vegetarianism are ethical concerns, not nutrition. Specifically:
- Vegetarianism is driven largely by religious ethics: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and some other groups, including SDA in the Christian cultures.
- Veganism is a predominantly secular ethic, driven by environmental concerns and animal welfare.
The simplest proof is that potato chips and beer, are vegetarian or vegan (as long as the beer does not have isinglass), but not very healthy as nutrition. It would not fit in a whole foods plant-based diet, by the very paradigm.
It is important we keep these issues apart when we talk about health. It is very easy to find very unhealthy vegetarians and vegans, for they do not categorically reject processed foods, as is the case in the whole foods, plant-based diet.
Hi Rogier, thank you for your comment. I fully agree that veganism is an ethical concern - I have written about this extensively.
You're also right that eating only potato chips could be considered a 'vegan' lifestyle but wouldn't be healthy - and that a whole-food, plant-based diet is the best choice for your health.
It is worth mentioning, though, that the studies cited here do not assume a whole-food, plant-based diet. Even people following a 'regular' plant-based diet experience benefits. Studies show that people living plant-based, on average, are significantly healthier, even if you control for factors such as smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, education, and socio-economic status.
Fantastic summary! I would almost use the word “unbelievable,” but these benefits are all consistent with previous research, and extensive (very conservative) reports of the balance of evidence such as the IPCC reports.
I really appreciate the utility analysis too (converting research findings into dollar estimates), because ideally that can assist policymakers in decision making. Ideally. 😒
The mechanisms are all pretty well understood too—this isn’t speculative—which is why I tend to lean into even more optimistic figures. Within a plant-exclusive diet, as the proportion of whole foods increases, the benefits continue to increase and the risk of certain issues such as cardiovascular disease approaches zero.
So in addition to de-subsidizing meat, dairy, eggs, and fish and subsidizing food for humans, we could theoretically go even further by internalizing the externalized societal costs of the consumption of many packaged and processed foods. The cost of palm oil should reflect the environmental cost of felling rainforests and clogging arteries.
Because the data are so lopsided, any rational and evidence-based proposal will sound extreme. $50 hamburgers!?!?
But actually, yes. And we haven’t even talked about valuing the lives of billions of sentient beings.
It remains important to separate the chaff from the wheat. From a nutritional standpoint, the relevant concept is T. Colin Campbell's Whole Foods, Plant-Based diet.
Veganism and vegetarianism are ethical concerns, not nutrition. Specifically:
- Vegetarianism is driven largely by religious ethics: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and some other groups, including SDA in the Christian cultures.
- Veganism is a predominantly secular ethic, driven by environmental concerns and animal welfare.
The simplest proof is that potato chips and beer, are vegetarian or vegan (as long as the beer does not have isinglass), but not very healthy as nutrition. It would not fit in a whole foods plant-based diet, by the very paradigm.
It is important we keep these issues apart when we talk about health. It is very easy to find very unhealthy vegetarians and vegans, for they do not categorically reject processed foods, as is the case in the whole foods, plant-based diet.
Hi Rogier, thank you for your comment. I fully agree that veganism is an ethical concern - I have written about this extensively.
You're also right that eating only potato chips could be considered a 'vegan' lifestyle but wouldn't be healthy - and that a whole-food, plant-based diet is the best choice for your health.
It is worth mentioning, though, that the studies cited here do not assume a whole-food, plant-based diet. Even people following a 'regular' plant-based diet experience benefits. Studies show that people living plant-based, on average, are significantly healthier, even if you control for factors such as smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, education, and socio-economic status.