Veganism- Doing More Environmental Harm than Good?

Intro/Background

Vegan- I am sure by now you have heard of the term either from someone you know trying it out, or the millions of social media profiles promoting the lifestyle. Whether you have a friend that’s been vegan for years or want to try it out for yourself, it’s not hard to notice the upsurge in popularity it has been gaining for years. I remember growing up pretty traditionally, eating meat and dairy, without a second thought as to the ethics or implications. Simply put, most children follow what parents show them in terms of eating patterns and habits while growing up and don’t think to question it until living independently (excluding picky eaters and young innovative thinkers). My first exposure to veganism was in my own home- a couple of years ago, my older brother had been working at a pizza place for a couple of months and had developed some pretty stubborn acne (the restaurant let the workers eat the leftovers…you can see where this goes). Of course, the dermatologist that he visited told him to analyze his eating habits and try his best to limit dairy and greasy foods; pizza had to go. That’s when he made the extreme turnaround in his eating and decided to go full-on vegan. He quit his job at the pizza place and got a new job at a vegan restaurant to learn how to make dishes. It was an arduous process for him through and through, and although he isn’t strictly vegan anymore, he still struggles with eating “regular” food without guilt-free.

Veganism Explained

Veganism is a word that confuses many because of how simple yet complex its definition is. Veganism purely means a diet without any animal products. Now, this is where it gets a bit hairy- a lot of the foods that people eat on a regular basis have added ingredients that most are unaware of. When I went vegan, it was ASTOUNDING to find out just how little people know about how food is prepared. For example, one of my coworkers last year tried to offer me an M&M and I declined because I was vegan; I told him “I can’t have any dairy”, to which he responded, “M&M’s don’t have dairy!!!”. I was shocked- it was obviously chocolate candy, specifically MILK chocolate. I wondered how people could think like this, blatantly ignorant of what they’re eating. But back to veganism: animal products are a large genre of food that include any kind of animal meat, dairy(milk, cheese, whey), and any kind of animal byproduct like eggs. In some cases, vegans will not eat gelatin because it is created from animal bones. In cases where veganism goes from a diet to a lifestyle, vegans will not wear any clothes or use any products that come from animals, like leather.

Environmental Perceptions

The story that follows veganism is that it “will cure the earth and society’s morals”, meaning if nobody is eating or using animals for products, then the world would have more animals to sustain the lands and ecosystem. As well as, abstaining from killing animals for food would better the morals and ethics of society as more cohesive and united to the earth. Moreover, it is no secret that the meat industry is one of the leading causes of high emissions of greenhouse gases, one of the main contributors to climate change. The animals that we discuss in regard to the food industry are cattle, “who are estimated to cause approximately half of the food-related climate emissions due to land use impacts and methane produced by ruminating animals”(Kortetmäki, Oksanen 2021). Knowing this and pairing it with the veganism diet itself makes it clear to see that it is commonly held that going vegan would greatly benefit the environment. Joseph Poore, a writer for the journal Science, once stated in an article regarding veganism that “a vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use”. It’s almost as if by not going vegan, you are adding to the climate catastrophe that the world is facing and not doing your part.

What Researchers Say about the Environmental Impact

Before getting into what the scientific community has been reporting about the true impact of veganism versus traditional diets, I wanted to clarify why it is veganism that is being highlighted as a solution to the climate crisis instead of regular vegetarianism. Vegetarians do not eat any kind of meat, but they can and do enjoy all types of dairy and eggs. Cheese, one of the world’s most beloved foods, has “one of the highest GHG footprints among foods and is common in non-meat diets” (Kortetmäki, Oksanen 2021). Therefore, veganism is a better alternative to vegetarianism when discussing solutions that would most benefit the climate.

So, what are researchers really saying about veganism and the environment? An article that analyzed the argument for climate-centered veganism brought up three big points worth discussing. The first point and probably the most obvious, was that there are animal-based foods that have close to or even lower carbon emission rates than some plant-based foods. For example, “emissions of a small, 100-g piece of chicken (approximately 1.15 kg CO2eq) equals the emissions of approximately 1.1 L of soymilk or 500 g of tomatoes” (Kortetmäki, Oksanen 2021). That’s crazy! To think that chicken and soy milk have similar carbon emissions is mind-blowing. The second point that was introduced was the food waste problem. A vegan person that is accidentally served chicken ramen instead of veggie ramen would have to send back the original, thereby wasting a nutrient-dense and high-carbon emitting food. This is just one example but can be applied to the grander scheme of things. Lastly, and most important in my opinion, veganism and avoidance of animal-based foods advance the climate-friendliness of a diet, BUT do not guarantee it! The reason behind this is that foods with high fat and protein content have higher carbon footprints than foods that are primarily carbohydrates. This means that foods like avocados, chickpeas, and tofu still have high carbon footprints, and therefore are still contributing somehow to climate change. Thus, a vegan person eating only fast food would not be benefiting the environment whatsoever

Conclusion

It is hard to say for sure at this point if veganism is strictly bad or strictly good for the environment, but we have some clues as to which direction the pendulum is currently swinging to. Although the research outlined above does a great job of poking holes in the climate-based argument for veganism, I still find that the environmental pros outweigh the cons. A lot more research is definitely needed to come to a real conclusion on this topic, and I am excited to see what comes of future findings. For now, I stick with the fact that veganism is more beneficial to the environment than an animal-based diet.

 

References

Kortetmäki, T., Oksanen, M. Is there a convincing case for climate veganism?. Agric Hum Values 38, 729–740 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10182-x

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.