I found this graphic. Even if we feed the waste the industrial waste to livestock and deduct that from the demand for animals (76 % – 13.2 % = 62.8 %) which I don't think we can do 1:1, over 60 % of the world wide soy bean production is only done for animal feed.
From the graphic I don't know if the mentioned waste is even fed to the animals.
But in the worst case scenario eating plant based would save 60 % of soy beans from ever being made, while the new demand from the plant based diets must be lower. Because lots of non-plant based people eat soy products already, especially in Asia and it still only makes up 20 % of the soy bean production right now.
I stipulated "if we eat less animal products", so there would be less demand, especially without subsidies.
And at least in my country you need to change the zoning of the land to build houses on it. Which is pretty difficult to do (european non-EU country, so I imagine in the EU it is even stricter). Especially as more and more countries want less sprawling out and more condensation of houses.
In this whole argument I also said that all these positive land use change effects would require less subsidies of animal products and more for plant based foods.
I am aware that this is not yet the case and may take a long time, but it comes with benefits and is worth pursuing considering the environmental state of the world.
Okay, but the AND has lots of articles on how to avoid deficiencies while eating animal products, isn't that kind of their job? As well the 2025 AND paper says "The target audience for this article is RDNs, NDTRs, and other health care practitioners." So it makes sense why they detail how to avoid deficiencies.
I am not saying just do whatever. But there are clearly upsides to a plant based diet that to me offset the work you have to do.
I assume the paper means that byproduct by specifying "soybean cake" in a seperate category.
"Soybean cakes can therefore be considered inedible for humans but
they are derived from an edible product and can be considered as the
main driver of soybean production."; "If the EFA
of the part used as feed material is > 66%, then the feed material is
considered as the main driver of land-use and therefore in competition
with food production. Practically, this is the case only for soybean
cakes (EFA=72%)" https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001
So the soybean byproduct is not a net positive with no drawbacks.
"Facilitating vegetarian dietary patterns in individuals younger than age 18 years and/or for those pregnant or lactating requires specific guidance that considers how vegetarian dietary patterns may influence these crucial stages of growth and development and is outside the scope of this position paper." (source above).
The way I am reading this, the paper doesn't mention young and pregnant people because that was not the aim of the paper, and not because they present clear evidence against it.
So vegan diets are definitely suitable for adults and maybe or maybe not for other age groups / stages of life.
Just because somebody does eat animal products doesn't mean they automatically have good health, you have to think about how to get your nutrients with any diet.
Taking a supplement of B12 / eating fortified foods is not difficult in europe.
Die Initiative hätte den service public der SRG de facto halbiert. Zum Glück wurde es abgelehnt, freue mich gerade sehr!
Aber wird wohl bald die nächste Abstimmung geben, so wie ich die SRG Gegner kenne akzeptieren die das Resultat so wohl nicht ...