Paper 2

This paper was written in my fifth grade of high school (2019/2020)

Should a plant-based diet be implemented to save the planet?

The number of people implementing a plant-based diet into their diets grew by 600% from nearly 4 million to 19.6 in 2017, in America only.[1] A plant-based diet will reduce the number of greenhouse gases caused by meat consumptions.[2] There are still many people eating meat consumptions which are harmful to the environment.[3] The meat taken from the animal take up many lands and they need to be fed with crops.[4] When people adopt a plant-based diet, these lands could be used to grow more crops and those animals don’t need to be fed that much anymore, meaning more food will be available for the human.[5] The question of asking whether meat substitutes can reduce environmental footprints has two bright sides to this debate.

On the one hand, it would reduce the living area of cattle and enlarging land to grow crops for a plant-based diet, giving people a healthier lifestyle.[6] This will lead to less pollution because cattle don’t need to be fed nor imported.[7] On the other hand, a plant-based diet may not be as good for the environment either, since chemicals are used to grow these crops, which again leads to greenhouse gases.[8] A solution based on the side against a plant-based diet may be genetically modified foods.[9] Therefore, the debate leads to the question of whether plant-based diets, a diet that consists mostly or entirely of foods derived from plants, should be implemented to save the planet. In my opinion, I believe that it cannot do any harm to try something new if it helps the planet. However, I am not aware of the fact if a plant-based saves the planet. I would have to find this out to answer the research question accurately.

The first article, “Can meat substitutes reduce China’s environmental footprint in Latin America?” by He Mu, 16.07.2019, claims that if China was to eat less pork and more plant-based diets, it might have a positive impact on the environment. In China, 65% of all meat consumed is pork. There are 1.3 billion humans in China, yet there are 700 million pigs.[10] Yeung states that there are many more humans currently living in China than there are pigs. So eventually there won’t be enough meat for the inhabitants.[11] Plant-based diets may solve this problem.[12] The soybeans imported from Latin America take up 20% of the pig’s diet. Nevertheless, the Chinese meat people eat, take up loads of land in Latin America.[13] If China moves more towards plant-based diets, agricultural sustainability in both China and Latin America would vastly improve, given how much less land plant-based diets require, as stated by Matt Ball. Another claim by the author is that a plant-based diet will have a healthier impact on the Chinese people. The author strengthens this claim by the use of a New- Zealand survey and its statistics. He also claims that a plant-based diet will have both a positive impact on Chinese healthcare and Latin America’s land. The author He Mu is a food and agriculture investment professional specializing in China and Latin America. This makes He Mu reliable since he specializes in food-related and agricultural perspectives. However, he isn’t a dietitian; therefore, he has less knowledge of people’s health care. He Mu does know what food is right and what isn’t.[14] Moreover, He Mu uses many sources to support his claims, for example, surveys and experts, so he doesn’t just use his knowledge but makes use of several different perspectives, which is reliable. Furthermore, he is specialized in China and Latin America which is what the perspectives of the articles are as well, which is reliable. The medium, Chinadialogue, is a newspaper based mainly on China and some other places such as London (UK). It focuses on the environment and sustainability. The newspaper is a broad newspaper with no particular political perspective; therefore, it could be reliable since it’s not one-sided. To conclude, this article by He Mu gave insight into the research question if plant-based diets should be implemented.

The second article, “Do vegans help prevent climate change?” by Nadine Wojcik, 12.08.2019, claims that the CO2 emission by meat is around 11 tons, whereas plants only take up 9 tons. Going vegan is probably the most significant influence an individual has on reducing his ecological footprint.[15] Another claim supporting the previous one is that the author mentions that to save the planet, three things are needed: no meat, no air travel, and no plastic. The author gives an example to prove this claim. A cow that is fed with crops in Argentina is being transported to Germany. Firstly, the feeding takes up possible human food and secondly, the transportation emits CO2. Therefore, Wojcik states that in this way, both transportation and feeding of cattle aren’t the way to save the planet. She does name plant-based diets are a solution to this problem. Cows don’t need to be transported and they don’t need to be fed as much as before, so there will be more crops for human beings.[16] The author strengthens these claims by use of some sources, for example, surveys YouGov, experts. However, Wojcik does not frequently support her arguments with evidence or sources, therefore she could be less reliable. Nadine Wojcik isn’t an expert on the topic of plant-based diets. She has studied politics, therefore knows the rights and values, but she has no professional knowledge of plant-based diets; therefore, she isn’t that reliable. Wojcik is German, so she knows what is happening in Germany and she is academic for this newspaper DW, which makes her reliable. The medium Deutsche Welle mainly limits their range to Germany. However, the UK plays a significant role in their news as well, which is reliable because the facts from the UK make the DW more global. To conclude, this article gave me insight into the research question about plant-based diets.

Concluding both articles. Article two did mention enough information but didn’t always include sources or evidence. Article one used more evidence to support his claims, which makes article one a bit more reliable. The authors don’t talk about one perspective, but they focus on several. Both authors based their arguments on a wide range. The first article was about China, the author was Chinese, and the second article was about Germany, the author was German. This makes them reliable since they know the area they are talking about. Furthermore, author one is an expert on the topic; however, author two is an academic which makes them both reliable. To conclude, article one may be more reliable than article two; besides the evidence or sources was article two, a fine article as well.

The third article, “Veganism won’t save the world from environmental ruin, researchers warn” by Hannah Sparks, 29.11.2019, claims that going vegan will not solve the planet, while crops still have an impact on the world.[17] Sparks does mention another solution with the help of Mike Coffey.[18] He states that if there will be genetically modified cattle, they will grow faster, eat less and produce 30% less methane. The author wants to show that this is the best solution; therefore, she uses other arguments to prove her point, namely by the use of reports, experts, nature organizations. Therefore, she’s more reliable because she uses more sources to support her claims. However, many sources are for this genetically modified cattle solution, so that could be less reliable since it’s one perspective. She did start by saying why plant-based diets would and would not work, causing her to be well-balanced, which is reliable. Sparks herself isn’t an expert on this perspective, she’s a writer for this magazine, so she might not be completely reliable. However, with the sources she uses for her claims, she can be seen as reliable. The medium, New York Post, is a daily newspaper from NY. It’s a newspaper with all kinds of news, and it’s not one-perspective only; therefore, the newspaper is more trustworthy since it published articles from different perspectives. To sum up, the third article helped me gain perspective on the topic.

Last article, “Why Plant-Based Diets Aren’t Enough To Save The Planet,” by Karn Manhas, 5.2.2019, claims that plant-based diets won’t save the planet. She states that chemicals are used to make fruits and crops look good; however, the chemicals are toxic for the environment and cause pollution. Therefore, the greenhouse gas problem won’t be solved, according to Manhas. Furthermore, Manhas states that climate change has led to a smaller harvest; therefore, there will be less food, which means the prices may rise. Additionally, Manhas states that chemicals used for fruits and crops will still cause pollution and won’t solve the problem of greenhouse gases. She states that less land can be used, which leads to fewer crops will be growing which means the prices go up. Karn Manhas, the author doesn’t use sources or evidence to prove her claims, which makes her less reliable, because sources will strengthen her claims. She isn’t an expert; she’s political; however, that doesn’t make her trustworthy since she doesn’t know, and she doesn’t use sources to strengthen her arguments. The medium, Forbes, is an American newspaper based on business topics. This means that it has a broad perspective and is more reliable. Since the magazine isn’t only one-sided, however, the newspaper quality doesn’t suit the topic since it isn’t about business, however, being broad-minded as a magazine is essential as well for the reliability. To sum up, the last article also gave me different information based on the question.

Concluding the articles against. The third article was in a better condition than the last one since the last one didn’t use sources to support its claims, while the third one did. However, the last article does use information that is proper to use, but she isn’t an expert and didn’t use sources; therefore, she isn’t that reliable. However, the author from article three isn’t an expert on the topic as well, but since it uses more evidence and sources to support her claims, she is more reliable. To conclude, article three is better than the last article since it supports its claims with evidence. However, they both aren’t experts which makes them both less reliable.

To conclude both perspectives for and against a plant-based diet. The perspective for a plant-based had more evidence and sources which the author used to support its claims. Furthermore, were the authors or an expert or an academic, which makes the perspectives for reliable, since it was written by experts who often used evidence to support arguments. The perspective against had no expert based on the topic and now and then used evidence to support claims, which doesn’t make the perspective against very reliable. This perspective may have included useful information, but the information itself wasn’t supported, and it wasn’t written by a professional. Therefore, is the perspective for a plant-based diet better than the perspective against since both authors are reliable because they’re experts/academics on the topic and occasionally used sources/evidence from the range they had knowledge of, to support their claims.

My personal opinion may have changed. Before my research, I didn’t know the chemicals used to grow crops lead to air pollution; therefore, a plant-based diet may not completely solve the problem. I do believe every small step people take to save the planet eventually leads to bigger ones. Furthermore, the breeding of cattle can be used for human beings, meaning less food should be harvested since the animals need less food because people will not eat them anymore. Basing my opinion on the perspectives, I must agree with the perspective for since the articles were in better condition, both authors were experts and used many sources to provide their claims. To conclude, I do still believe that a plant-based diet can do good to the planet and help it even for only a little bit. However, to be entirely positive about this answer, more research should be done.

1999 words

Bibliography

– H. Sparks, ‘Veganism won’t save the world from environmental ruin, researchers warn.’, New York Post, (29 November 2019) Online. Available: https://nypost.com/2019/11/29/veganism-wont-save-the-world-from-environmental-ruin-researchers-warn/.

– H. Mu, ‘Can meat substitutes reduce China’s environmental footprint in Latin America?’, China Dialogue, (16 August 2019). Online. Available from: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11384-Can-meat-substitutes-reduce-China-s-environmental-footprint-in-Latin-America-.

Ming Court, a Michelin-starred restaurant in Hong Kong

– K. Manhas, ‘Why plant-based diets aren’t enough to save the planet.’, Forbes, (2 April 2019) Online. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2019/02/05/why-plant-based-diets-arent-enough-to-save-the-planet/#116249a64ef5

– N. Wojcik, ‘Do vegans help prevent climate change?’ Deutsche Welle, (12 September 2019) Online. Available: https://www.dw.com/en/do-vegans-help-prevent-climate-change/a-49992593.

– “ “, ‘Global Popularity of purely plant-based diets’, Sinea, (2020). Online. Available from: https://www.sineafoods.com/global-popularity-of-purely-plant-based-diet-is-rising/

[1] “ “, ‘Global Popularity of purely plant-based diets’, Sinea, (2020). Online. Available from: https://www.sineafoods.com/global-popularity-of-purely-plant-based-diet-is-rising/

[2] H. Mu, ‘Can meat substitutes reduce China’s environmental footprint in Latin America?’, China Dialogue, (16 August 2019). Online. Available from: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11384-Can-meat-substitutes-reduce-China-s-environmental-footprint-in-Latin-America-.

[3] “ “, ‘Global Popularity of purely plant-based diets’, Sinea, (2020). Online. Available from: https://www.sineafoods.com/global-popularity-of-purely-plant-based-diet-is-rising/

[4] H. Mu, ‘Can meat substitutes reduce China’s environmental footprint in Latin America?’, China Dialogue, (16 August 2019). Online. Available from: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11384-Can-meat-substitutes-reduce-China-s-environmental-footprint-in-Latin-America-.

[5] H. Mu, ‘Can meat substitutes reduce China’s environmental footprint in Latin America?’, China Dialogue, (16 August 2019). Online. Available from: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11384-Can-meat-substitutes-reduce-China-s-environmental-footprint-in-Latin-America-.

[6] H. Mu, ‘Can meat substitutes reduce China’s environmental footprint in Latin America?’, China Dialogue, (16 August 2019). Online. Available from: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11384-Can-meat-substitutes-reduce-China-s-environmental-footprint-in-Latin-America-.

[7]H. Mu, ‘Can meat substitutes reduce China’s environmental footprint in Latin America?’, China Dialogue, (16 August 2019). Online. Available from: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11384-Can-meat-substitutes-reduce-China-s-environmental-footprint-in-Latin-America-. ‘New-Zealand Survey.’

[8] K. Manhas, ‘Why plant-based diets aren’t enough to save the planet.’, Forbes, (2 April 2019) Online. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2019/02/05/why-plant-based-diets-arent-enough-to-save-the-planet/#116249a64ef5

[9] H. Sparks, ‘Veganism won’t save the world from environmental ruin, researchers warn.’, New York Post, (29 November 2019) Online. Available: https://nypost.com/2019/11/29/veganism-wont-save-the-world-from-environmental-ruin-researchers-warn/.

[10]H. Mu, ‘Can meat substitutes reduce China’s environmental footprint in Latin America?’, China Dialogue, (16 August 2019). Online. Available from: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11384-Can-meat-substitutes-reduce-China-s-environmental-footprint-in-Latin-America-.

[11] H. Mu, ‘Can meat substitutes reduce China’s environmental footprint in Latin America?’, China Dialogue, (16 August 2019). Online. Available from: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11384-Can-meat-substitutes-reduce-China-s-environmental-footprint-in-Latin-America-.

[12] H. Mu, ‘Can meat substitutes reduce China’s environmental footprint in Latin America?’, China Dialogue, (16 August 2019). Online. Available from: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11384-Can-meat-substitutes-reduce-China-s-environmental-footprint-in-Latin-America-. Ming Court, a Michelin-starred restaurant in Hong Kong.

[13] H. Mu, ‘Can meat substitutes reduce China’s environmental footprint in Latin America?’, China Dialogue, (16 August 2019). Online. Available from: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11384-Can-meat-substitutes-reduce-China-s-environmental-footprint-in-Latin-America-. Matt Ball from the Good Food Institute, a US-based non-profit that promotes plant-based meat alternatives.

[14] H. Mu, ‘Can meat substitutes reduce China’s environmental footprint in Latin America?’, China Dialogue, (16 August 2019). Online. Available from: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11384-Can-meat-substitutes-reduce-China-s-environmental-footprint-in-Latin-America-.

[15] N. Wojcik, ‘Do vegans help prevent climate change?’ Deutsche Welle, (12 September 2019) Online. Available: https://www.dw.com/en/do-vegans-help-prevent-climate-change/a-49992593. Oxford scientist Joseph Poore in the German newsweekly Der Spiegel.

[16] N. Wojcik, ‘Do vegans help prevent climate change?’ Deutsche Welle, (12 September 2019) Online. Available: https://www.dw.com/en/do-vegans-help-prevent-climate-change/a-49992593.

[17] H. Sparks, ‘Veganism won’t save the world from environmental ruin, researchers warn.’, New York Post, (29 November 2019) Online. Available: https://nypost.com/2019/11/29/veganism-wont-save-the-world-from-environmental-ruin-researchers-warn/.

[18] H. Sparks, ‘Veganism won’t save the world from environmental ruin, researchers warn.’, New York Post, (29 November 2019) Online. Available: https://nypost.com/2019/11/29/veganism-wont-save-the-world-from-environmental-ruin-researchers-warn/.

Should a plant-based diet be implemented to save the planet?

Dit delen: