Lisätäänpäs tähän yksi Whiten ja Hallin tutkimusta kritisoiva kommentti, jossa siinäkin kuitenkin todetaan seuraavaa:
Importantly, their conclusions implicitly assume linear trends between current diet and an animal-free scenario (Fig. 1A). The literature, however, provides evidence for nonlinear relationships with an optimum for GHGE reduction and nutritional capacity at intermediate levels of animal-based agriculture
Causing confusion in the debate about the transition toward a more plant-based diet | PNAS
Eli kuten olen aiemminkin kommentoinut, lienee selvää ettei nykyisenlainen ylenmääräinen tehotuotetulla punaisella lihalla mässäily ole kestävää, mutta vegaanius ei ole tämän ainoa luonteva saati järkevä vaihtoehto. Siitä on vain tullut ihmeellinen pyhä lehmä toisille ja kyllä osalla kyse tuntuu suurelta osin olevan jonkinasteisesta halvasta hyvesignaloinnista. Ja tämä nimenomaan ilmaston kannalta puhuttaessa.
Alkup. paperin julkaisijat lisäksi vastaavat joihinkin oletuksista ja niiden epärealistisuudesta esitettyihin huolenaiheisiin tässä:
Reply to Van Meerbeek and Svenning, Emery, and Springmann et al.: Clarifying assumptions and objectives in evaluating effects of food system shifts on human diets | PNAS
Yksi ote tuosta:
Additional concerns were raised about failure to consider a variety of diets (1) and continuing “to grow animal feed and incorporate it into human diets” (2). These points reflect a desire to evaluate the results of the study outside the context of our objective. Existing literature evaluates a wide array of diets for health and environmental impacts. We investigated the inverse: impacts of an agricultural system on foods available for human consumption.
...
Indeed, the discrepancy between foods that could be produced vs. the population’s dietary requirements is a focus of our study. Findings like the need to consume high-energy foods to meet micronutrient requirements, such as the values highlighted in Springmann et al. (3), are exactly the point of our study. If a shift in human diets is necessary, feasibility of corresponding food supply changes requires evaluation. Researchers cannot assume that “production in each country adjusts to internal changes in demand” (13) without establishing that such adjustments are achievable. In a study that acknowledged the infeasibility of global application of some diets, the authors estimated that global increases in fruit and vegetable production of 39% and 54%, respectively, were needed to support vegetarian and vegan diets, and these diets were described as “not intended to be realizable dietary outcomes on a global level” (14).
Importantly, their conclusions implicitly assume linear trends between current diet and an animal-free scenario (Fig. 1A). The literature, however, provides evidence for nonlinear relationships with an optimum for GHGE reduction and nutritional capacity at intermediate levels of animal-based agriculture
Causing confusion in the debate about the transition toward a more plant-based diet | PNAS
Eli kuten olen aiemminkin kommentoinut, lienee selvää ettei nykyisenlainen ylenmääräinen tehotuotetulla punaisella lihalla mässäily ole kestävää, mutta vegaanius ei ole tämän ainoa luonteva saati järkevä vaihtoehto. Siitä on vain tullut ihmeellinen pyhä lehmä toisille ja kyllä osalla kyse tuntuu suurelta osin olevan jonkinasteisesta halvasta hyvesignaloinnista. Ja tämä nimenomaan ilmaston kannalta puhuttaessa.
Alkup. paperin julkaisijat lisäksi vastaavat joihinkin oletuksista ja niiden epärealistisuudesta esitettyihin huolenaiheisiin tässä:
Reply to Van Meerbeek and Svenning, Emery, and Springmann et al.: Clarifying assumptions and objectives in evaluating effects of food system shifts on human diets | PNAS
Yksi ote tuosta:
Additional concerns were raised about failure to consider a variety of diets (1) and continuing “to grow animal feed and incorporate it into human diets” (2). These points reflect a desire to evaluate the results of the study outside the context of our objective. Existing literature evaluates a wide array of diets for health and environmental impacts. We investigated the inverse: impacts of an agricultural system on foods available for human consumption.
...
Indeed, the discrepancy between foods that could be produced vs. the population’s dietary requirements is a focus of our study. Findings like the need to consume high-energy foods to meet micronutrient requirements, such as the values highlighted in Springmann et al. (3), are exactly the point of our study. If a shift in human diets is necessary, feasibility of corresponding food supply changes requires evaluation. Researchers cannot assume that “production in each country adjusts to internal changes in demand” (13) without establishing that such adjustments are achievable. In a study that acknowledged the infeasibility of global application of some diets, the authors estimated that global increases in fruit and vegetable production of 39% and 54%, respectively, were needed to support vegetarian and vegan diets, and these diets were described as “not intended to be realizable dietary outcomes on a global level” (14).