Meat and the Environment: Debunking 7 Myths About Cows, Meat and Climate
Are cows really destroying the planet? In Episode 5 of ReThink Meat, we challenge the most common environmental myths about meat, revealing how much of what we hear about cattle and climate is based on flawed science and misinformation.
This 27-minute episode explores:
- 4 reasons the methane problem is overblown and why cows ≠ cars.
- The truth about water use, grain consumption, and their impact on cattle farming.
- Why fossil fuels, not cows, are the real culprits behind climate change.
- Surprising insights from Dr. Frank Mitloehner on why going vegan isn’t the environmental fix you think it is.
- How plant-based diets can sometimes be less sustainable than beef.
- Why not all animals harm the planet—and some actually regenerate ecosystems.
- The big-picture economics of grass-fed beef—and why it’s not always more expensive than you think.
- You’ll walk away surprised by how pervasive false narratives about cows and climate have become—and empowered to make informed choices about meat that benefit both human and planetary health.
Summary:
In this episode of ReThink Meat, the video debunks seven common myths surrounding the environmental impact of cows and livestock farming. It challenges the mainstream narrative that meat consumption is a leading cause of climate change and deforestation, emphasizing that the way livestock is managed is more crucial than the animals themselves. It highlights the potential of regenerative agriculture and responsible meat choices to restore ecosystems instead of harming them, advocating for a nuanced understanding of meat’s role in sustainability.
Key Points
Cows and methane emissions
Common beliefs suggest that cows contribute significantly to methane emissions and climate change. However, methane from cattle represents a small fraction of global emissions compared to many natural and industrial sources. Additionally, methane’s impact is often overstated, as it breaks down naturally in about ten years.
Animal agriculture vs. transportation emissions
A misconception claims livestock generates more greenhouse gases than transportation. Studies have shown that livestock contributes significantly less to emissions than the transportation sector. Proper accounting reveals a clear disparity, with transportation responsible for almost three times the emissions compared to livestock.
Use of agricultural land for livestock
It’s often thought that livestock farming consumes land that could support crops, but a large portion of agricultural land is unsuitable for other uses. Livestock can convert non-arable land into nutritious food while also improving soil health.
Water usage in livestock farming
Contrary to popular belief, livestock farming does not use excessive amounts of water. Most water for cattle comes from rainfall, and livestock can improve soil’s water retention capabilities, countering issues like drought.
Ecosystem impacts of livestock
Livestock are often seen as harmful to ecosystems. This video argues that livestock, when managed well, can benefit ecosystems by sequestering carbon, improving biodiversity, and restoring soil health.
Going vegan doesn’t significantly reduce emissions
Research suggests that eliminating livestock from diets would have a minimal impact on overall greenhouse gas emissions. Nutrient deficiencies would likely rise due to the loss of animal-derived nutrients.
Cost of high-quality meat
Quality meat is sometimes perceived as expensive, but when considering health and environmental costs, grass-fed beef can be more economical compared to processed foods. Furthermore, the true cost of cheap meat from industrial farming includes environmental damage.
references 2
Claim: And when those animals are grass fed? That number is more like 97%. Most importantly, much of that water is actually returned to the Earth.
Source:
https://www.sacredcow.info/blog/beef-is-not-a-water-hog#%3A~%3Atext=Beef+production+is+able+to%2Ca+calf+once+a+year
“In a grass-finished beef operation, the amount of green water used is closer to 98% because the cattle are raised exclusively on pasture.”
Source:
https://waterfootprint.org/resources/Report-48-WaterFootprint-AnimalProducts-Vol1.pdf
“In the grazing system, over 97% of the water footprint related to feed comes from grazing and fodder crops and the water footprint is dominantly (94%) green.”
Claim: In fact, these plant-based foods require far more water and provide nowhere near the nutritional profile.
Source:
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/10/1518
“However, plant-based diets have low contents of essential micronutrients, such as iron, zinc, vitamin B-12, vitamin D, omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids, calcium, and iodine, and such micronutrient deficiencies lead to the risk of malnutrition. People who follow vegan diets usually are required to take daily supplements of some of these nutrients because the averages of these nutrients are insufficient in their diets. Although some sources of plants can compensate for the required amounts of nutrients, vegans need to consume 20% more food than non-vegans (omnivore) to arrive at the recommended daily doses of the above-mentioned nutrients [60].
“However, crop-only production and an exclusively vegan diet may lead to the loss of important plant and animal genetic materials, increase pressure on land and water resources, and exacerbate problems with agricultural crop residues.”
“the conversion of large forests into arable lands, particularly into cash-crop plantations, has a direct influence on vegetation and local climate through its control of water and energy fluxes.”
Claim: It takes an average of 2,000 Liters of water (528 gallons) to produce 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of avocados. And every time you throw away one of those over-ripe avocados, it’s like running your shower for one hour.
Source: https://www.treehugger.com/avocado-chile-petorca-united-kingdom-village-drought-4868652
“the average American shower uses 2.1 gallons of water per minute. Throwing away one avocado would be like letting the shower run for more than an hour with no one in it.”
Source:https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/10/avocado-illegal-deforestation-mexico-pine-forests
“Two thousand litres of water are needed to produce just one kilo of avocados – “
Claim: There is also a misconception that livestock are consuming the majority of our grains – 50% in the US according to some estimates, and around 80% globally.
Source: https://coloradonewsline.com/2022/06/29/crops-people-animals-life-or-death/#%3A~%3Atext=In+the+US+alone%2C+more%2Cthe+human+population+on+Earth
“In the US alone, more than 50% of grain is fed to farmed animals rather than people (the world’s cattle consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people — again more than the human population on Earth).”
Source:
https://sentientmedia.org/food-over-feed-war-in-ukraine-highlights-need-for-dietary-change/
“According to a study about food security, livestock producers used 61 percent of global corn and 20 percent of wheat between 2016 and 2018. In addition to grain, livestock farmers feed around 80 percent of global soy to farmed animals, another crop that humans could eat directly.”
Claim: An article in The Economist said “die-hard leaf eaters can claim to have knocked 85% off their carbon footprint.” (“How Much Would Giving up Meat Help the Environment?” 2019)
Source: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/11/15/how-much-would-giving-up-meat-help-the-environment?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Fhowmuchwouldgivingupmeathelptheenvironmentdailychart
Claim: The average emission per person per year related to diet is just 16% …
Source: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Plant-Based-eating-plants-only-improve/dp/1408717441
Claim: Research has also shown when we adjust these models to consider necessary nutrients, emissions are similar between plant & animal foods.
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26074#Sec13
The findings suggest that when adjusting for essential nutrient content, the environmental impacts of animal and plant-based foods are more comparable than commonly perceived.
“The main conclusion of the study is that, under this perspective, the theoretical advantage of producing vegetal rather than animal proteins, is either markedly blunted, abolished or even reverted, with the notable exceptions of soybeans (still requiring ≈85% less land and producing ≈90% less GHGE, than those associated to beef meat).”
Claim: And the environmental cost of plant-based nutrients increases when you consider their reduced bioavailability and the emissions of animal foods can be reduced by up to 14% by eating nose to tail.
Source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b06079
“A diet to a higher amount of offal with less needs to be thrown away (S8) showed the second largest reduction potential or 14% reduction of the original GHG emissions…”
Source: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/12/1841
“In spite of the higher iron content in vegan diets, typically vegetarians have lower serum ferritin (iron stores) than meat-eaters, likely due to the reduced bioavailability of the type of iron found in plants,”
A review in Nutrients highlights that while plant-based diets can improve health and environmental sustainability, they may require careful planning to meet micronutrient needs due to lower bioavailability of certain nutrients. This could potentially lead to increased consumption of plant foods to meet nutritional requirements, thereby raising environmental impacts
Claim: Certain studies have found processed foods have a higher carbon footprint (Ridoutt et al., 2020, #) (da Silva & et. al., 2021),
Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00254-0/fulltext
“Between 1987–88 and 2017–18, diet-related GHGE increased by 21% (from 1538·6 g CO2 equivalent [CO2e] per 1000 kcal [95% CI 1473·3–1604·0] to 1866·0 g CO2e per 1000 kcal [1788·0–1944·0]; ptrend<0·0001), diet-related water footprint increased by 22% (from 1447·2 L/1000 kcal [95% CI 1400·7–1493·8] to 1769·1 L/1000 kcal [1714·5–1823·7]; ptrend<0·0001), and diet-related ecological footprint increased by 17% (from 9·69 m2/1000 kcal [95% CI 9·33–10·05] to 11·36 m2/1000 kcal [10·91–11·81]; ptrend<0·0001).”
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362165569_A_conceptual_framework_for_understanding_the_environmental_impacts_of_ultra-processed_foods_and_implications_for_sustainable_food_systems
Ultra-Processed Foods and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A review highlighted that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, with items like processed meats, burgers, and pizza contributing the most.
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38173129/
Carbon Footprint of Ultra-Processed Food Purchases: Research published in Public Health Nutrition found that the highest quintile of ultra-processed food purchases was associated with a 14.4% increase in carbon footprint compared to the lowest quintile
Claim: …and that healthful diets containing meat and plants may actually be the most eco-friendly when considering worldwide populations (Buxton, 2022) (Peters et al., 2016).
Source: https://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article/doi/10.12952/journal.elementa.000116/112904/Carrying-capacity-of-U-S-agricultural-land-Ten
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-023-00239-6
A study published in The Lancet Planetary Health introduced the concept of the “Planetary Health Diet,” which emphasizes a balance of plant-based foods with modest amounts of animal-based products. This diet aims to promote health and environmental sustainability. The researchers suggest that such a diet could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and land use compared to current dietary patterns, while still providing adequate nutrition.
Claim: The soy that makes up much of the plant-based market - 95% is genetically modified and sprayed with pesticides that degrade environmental health (USDA ERS, 2023) (Non GMO Project, 2023).
Source: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-united-states/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption/
“Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops, which tolerate potent herbicides (such as glyphosate, glufosinate, and dicamba), provide farmers with a broad variety of options for effective weed control. Based on USDA survey data, the percent of domestic soybean acres planted with HT seeds rose from 17 percent in 1997 to 68 percent in 2001, before plateauing at 94 percent in 2014. In 2024, HT soybean acreage reached its highest adoption at 96 percent. HT cotton acreage expanded from approximately 10 percent in 1997 to 56 percent in 2001, before reaching a high of 95 percent in 2019. “
Source: https://www.nongmoproject.org/blog/the-gmo-high-risk-list-soybeans/
“Roughly 95% of soy grown in the United States is genetically engineered to withstand weedkillers, a GMO trait known as herbicide tolerance. The first herbicide-tolerant GMO soy was created by inserting DNA from a glyphosate-resistant bacteria into the soy plant so farmers could apply weedkillers to their fields without damaging their cash crop.”
references 3
Claim: A 2019 report by Quantis labs at WOP revealed that (Quantis, 2019)…Grass fed beef was the only net positive food when compared to other calculations for conventional beef, soy, pork, and chicken.
Source: https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019.pdf
Claim: A recent paper comparing Grass Fed BEEF & Impossible burger also found that though the nutrition labels looked the same - 90% of the metabolites were different.- meaning they are not nutritionally interchangeable (van Vliet et al., 2021).
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34226581/
“Despite apparent similarities based on Nutrition Facts panels, our metabolomics analysis found that metabolite abundances between the plant-based meat alternative and grass-fed ground beef differed by 90% (171 out of 190 profiled metabolites; false discovery rate adjusted p < 0.05). Several metabolites were found either exclusively (22 metabolites) or in greater quantities in beef (51 metabolites) (all, p < 0.05). Nutrients such as docosahexaenoic acid (ω-3), niacinamide (vitamin B3), glucosamine, hydroxyproline and the anti-oxidants allantoin, anserine, cysteamine, spermine, and squalene were amongst those only found in beef.”
Claim: Not to mention recent lawsuits point to a lack of validity regarding certain nutritional claims…specifically the protein content (Wile, 2023).
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/beyond-meat-lawsuit-protein-content-class-action-rcna68818
“The suits allege Beyond Meat Inc., which sells plant-based meat-substitute products, miscalculates and overstates the protein content in its foods and misleads consumers about the nutritional benefits, compared to traditional meat products.”
Claim: With 3% of the global population being vegan, that leaves 97% of people still eating animal products that contain essential nutrients so rather than demonizing animal foods perhaps the more important question is one posed by environmental activist John Roulac (IPSOS, 2018)…
Source: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2018-09/an_exploration_into_diets_around_the_world.pdf
“Vegan
3%
Do not eat animal products at all”
Claim: .Snickers is more expensive than grass fed beef and provides nowhere near the nutrition (FoodData Central Search Results, 2017) (FoodData Central Search Results, 2019)(Rodgers, 2018).
Source for Snickers: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/food-details/557863/nutrients
Source for Grass Fed Beef: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/food-details/168608/nutrients
Source: https://sustainabledish.com/grass-fed-beef-elitist-10-foods-expensive-less-nutritious-grass-fed-beef/
“pack of 6: $4.27 or $0.39 per ounce at Walmart”