October 1 is World Vegetarian Day – first celebrated in 1977 at the suggestion of the North American Vegetarian Society (NAVS) and then approved by the International Vegetarian Union in 1978. The benefits of the vegetarian diet are studied by weather: it is good for health, saves the lives of animals and also helps preserve the Earth. But what would happen if all the inhabitants of the planet started a vegetarian diet by giving up meat, as suggested by some scientists and the young environmentalist Greta Thunberg? We tried to do some calculations and outline some scenarios.
Immediately no to meat? A catastrophe. An immediate shift to a vegetarian diet would be a catastrophe. A consistent slice of the meat that is produced every year in the world (350 million tons) and which is already in the supply chain, would remain unsold and we would not immediately find a way to replace it in our diets with a sufficient quantity of plant nutrients. Companies and individuals in the sector would fail, causing the economies of many populations based mainly on fishing and livestock to collapse. This would result in: poaching, illegal meat markets, illegal hunting and fishing, massive migrations and, probably, new wars, not to mention that social, psychological and even biological problems would be encountered almost everywhere, with a considerable impact also on animal biodiversity. In short, a disastrous scenario.
But if they gradually became vegetarians it would be much better. First of all, it should be noted that not everyone could follow a “green” diet, both for health reasons – perhaps because they are unable to assimilate vegetable fibers – and for habitat and subsistence issues. Some peoples (a hundred million individuals including Inuit, Bedouin, Berber and Mongolian, to name the best known) do not have direct access to “vegetable” resources, living in mainly arid or permanently frozen areas. They would therefore depend entirely on imports. In the past, attempts have also been made to convert some extremely inhospitable areas to agriculture, such as the vast strip of the Sahel (3,000,000 square km between the equator and the Sahara desert), but without success and with serious consequences for the economies. local, based on pastoralism. Net of these exceptions, the others could instead undertake the vegetarian choice. With some positive effects for everyone.
As is well known, in fact, burps and flatulence in cattle produce methane: from 200 to 500 liters per day per individual. Getting rid of the 3.1 billion tons of CO2 equivalent emitted every year by all ruminants in the world would be a big blow to the environment. Marco Springmann, a researcher at the University of Oxford, has calculated that if we all stopped eating meat, by 2050 the emissions due to the production of food (vegetables, but also dairy products and eggs) would fall by 60%, even reaching 70% if renounce any food of animal origin, in the most radical hypothesis, the vegan one.
less meat, more health. Of course, such a radical and revolutionary decision would make us lose numerous cultural traditions. And we are not referring only to cotechino, prosciutto and nduja, the spicy Calabrian sausage, to which our thoughts immediately went. Meat is linked to the identity of many peoples, it is an integral part of religious holidays (for Jews, for example) or rites of passage, especially for the indigenous peoples of South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania. Not to mention the nomadic populations, such as Berbers and Mongols: a sedentary life based on agriculture and not on farming or hunting would amount to the loss of their identity.
From the point of view of health, however, we would all gain: we would face a concrete reduction in deaths from cancer and cardiovascular diseases because those due to a excessive consumption of red meat, globally quantifiable between 6% and 10%. 5-8 million lives would be saved every year. All this with a saving of about 2-3% of the global gross domestic product in terms of lower healthcare costs.
Furthermore, a vegetarian diet is biologically suitable for everyone. “The increase in dietary fiber that a vegetarian diet brings with it has a significant impact primarily on the intestinal flora, but also on the feeling of hunger and satiety and, contrary to what one might think, if the vegetarian diet continued to bring everyone the nutrients needed by the body, the physiological changes would be minimal ”, explains Francesca Scazzina, professor of Physiology at the University of Parma.
balanced vegetarian diet. The daily requirement of protein is 0.9 grams per kg of body weight and it can be easily taken by eating pasta, legumes, milk, eggs and yogurt. “Many vegetable proteins can integrate perfectly with each other ensuring an adequate supply of all amino acids, and in the context of a balanced vegetarian diet there are no significant nutrient deficiencies”, continues the expert: “at the limit, it could be useful to integrate acids omega-3 fats with the introduction of algae in the diet. “
The situation would be different with regard to the vegan diet, that is, without products such as milk, cheese and eggs. “In this case, various precautions would be necessary”, adds Scazzina: “omega-3 would also be needed in this case, but also reliable sources of vitamin B12, calcium, iron and zinc. The absence of these elements could lead to nutritional deficiencies especially in children, the elderly, and in pregnant and breastfeeding women ». We should therefore take them through supplements, and the market for these products, already growing today, would develop considerably.
Economic upheavals. However, what has been said so far applies to developed countries. Problems would arise for those who live in the rest of the planet, especially in overpopulated areas and unable to support the needs of the population with only vegetables. The crux lies in replacing a product such as meat, which provides a large number of proteins at relatively low cost and easily available, with legumes, cereals and vegetables.
But is the amount of protein coming from farms now easily replaceable? Theoretically yes, if we assume that we cultivate every land with soy: we will produce 468% more protein than meat, against a cost of only 65% higher. The only vulnerability in this mechanism is that monocultures, in the long run, impoverish the soil by decreasing its biodiversity, and it is necessary to rotate crops to keep it fertile. So, after a few harvests, it would be necessary to vary our protein source by sowing alternative plants.
What if we all became vegan? In the most radical scenario, the vegan one, we should then think about relocating around 38 million fishermen and 570 million farmers to other sectors. Even if you want, it is not possible to find work for everyone in agriculture. One third of the earth’s surface is suitable for farming and not for agriculture. Not only that: today in the world there are 5 billion hectares dedicated to agriculture and livestock, and 68% is destined only for the latter.
According to experts, it would be enough to use 20% of those areas to grow meat substitutes. The rest could be left for forests and green areas, helping to increase biodiversity. However, time and economic investments would be needed, because in a first phase the land left by the breeding is impoverished. The downside is that, however, the presence of farm animals also contributes to biodiversity.
If, on the other hand, we decide to keep the farms and convert them to the production of milk and derivatives, the problems would concern the quantity of milk produced, lower than the current one since a large part would be destined for the nutrition of calves no longer slaughtered. Then there would remain the difficulty in “relocating” the latter in nature, where many specimens would not survive due to the inability to get food, especially in the colder seasons, or because they were preyed upon by other animals. A similar argument should be made for the 10 billion “chickens” in order to maintain egg production.
Common sense even at the table. But beyond the drastic scenario of a totally vegetarian world dreamed of by many, a more moderate consumption of meat (once or twice a week at most) would be enough to significantly reduce global emissions (in the United Kingdom alone, according to a recent study, would collapse by 17%) and feel better health. Basically, if from tomorrow everyone ate the right amount of meat, the world of the day after tomorrow would certainly benefit.