>I can safely say aside from the animal abuse stuff

Which should be enough for anyone to not support something so barbaric that is not necessary to live, but love glossing over that lmao

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561420306567

Do you have the actual data and conclusion drawn by the article? Because this is an abstract with no value statement or results accessible through the link lmao. Can you at least pretend to read the sources you cite?

​

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561420306567

Given that somewhere between 99.6% and 94% of the US's population is non vegan, and 94% are deficient in one or more vitamins, even if we place every single vegan within that camp, that leaves at minimum 88% of carnists and vegetarians being vitamin deficient. This is not an inherent shortcoming of the concept of the diet in either case, and the study you cited and definitely, totally read notes that low micro and macro nutrient intake is not inherently linked to health problems. Plant protein is still incredibly abundant, and benefits from being one of the few healthy protein sources typically found even in food deserts due to the prevalence of tinned beans.

>"Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in many countries. Pesticides, fertilizers and other toxic farm chemicals can poison fresh water, marine ecosystems, air and soil. They also can remain in the environment for generations. Many pesticides are suspected of disrupting the hormonal systems of people and wildlife. Fertilizer run-off impacts waterways and coral reef.
>
>The agricultural sector consumes about 69 percent of the planet's fresh water. Without creative conservation measures in place, agricultural production consumes excessive water and degrades water quality. This adversely impacts freshwater systems throughout the world."

...Is this supposed to be a gotcha? Not sure if you know this chief, but livestock don't photosynthesize. Livestock feed accounts for the majority of space taken up in our arable land. If you want to reduce the effect of agriculture on the planet, the firs thing to do is stop pumping most of our food into a stupendously less efficient source of food just because it tastes better. Literally all negative traits of our agricultural practices from pesticide use to runoff are simply magnified by the existence of livestock.

>It is not as simple as you are making it, you have no real plan for any of the massive amount of problems you would create by doing what you think should be done. Period. So stop lecturing people like you have it figured out, you don't.

It's actually more simple. Plant based calories (yes, on a per calorie basis) take up less land and less water

>Or go find arguments to those that aren't case studies. Good luck.

What do you think case study means, exactly? And we're excluding them, because...?

>Oh and go look up what droughts and famines are. Figure out how to feed the planet without killing half of it, while being environmentally friendly and there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you. Yelling and lecturing is easier though right?

Ok, stop feeding plants we could be eating to livestock and feed those to people instead. Again, all complaints about the nature of our agricultural practices are magnified by livestock, not replaced by. Stop dedicating the majority of our arable land to livestock. Now that we've done that, what's the next step, kiddo?