5 ms·
But a chicken or fish near you is far more environmentally friendly than vegetarian food from father places. So the title is a bit misleading.
by vinni2 7y ago
But a chicken or fish near you is far more environmentally friendly than vegetarian food from father places. So the title is a bit misleading.
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoYour claim seems to be refuted by a lot of sources, https://medium.com/@annieleymarie/tabitha-writes-that-the-main-factors-which-go-into-how-sustainable-and-environmentally-friendly-a-c5b6cb56d03a https://medium.com/@annieleymarie/tabitha-writes-that-the-ma... The title is not misleading. Local meat, fish & dairy are worse all around than far-away vegetarian foods. This is not an argument for or against being vegetarian, just a more or less indisputable measurement of food production.
- mtalantikite 7y agoAre they? The study left out fish, so I didn’t see that conclusion in there. Also, the title is pretty much the conclusion of the study: eating vegetarian has a greater environmental impact than eating local.
- vinni2 7y agoSo why are they generalizing their claims when they have left out whole category of foods? And they consider dairy as not vegetarian that’s not accurate either.
- vinni2 7y agoTechnically diary products are still vegetarian so the title is still inaccurate. It should be vegan to be correct.