i ain't in the mood i'll be in the tomb ay

hey guys, hope your skin is clear and you get a text from someone you like real soon.

1. This is an article about how vegans (alongside meat eaters) can still cause harm with things like avacadoes, mangoes, quinoa and suggest instead that we try to buy local or grow our own. Not a single sentence to suggest “more harm.” We are not claiming to cause no harm, we are claiming to cause less.
2. You clearly haven’t even skimmed through this one, as it’s primary purpose is to debunk the myths that you yourself are perpetuating.
3. Again, you haven’t read this, or even read the URL by the looks of it. This is an article from a vegan blog posing the question of whether vegans kill more animals than meat eaters. Their answer is, unsurprisingly, a resounding no.
4. You may have actually read some of this, but been severely misled by a fairly transparent clickbait title and very selective interpretation. The study linked actually concludes that in an animal-free model, agricultural greenhouse-gas emissions dropped by 28%. Again, no mention of the idea that vegans cause more harm than meat eaters do.

• “If the US were to go 100% vegan, Americans would be forced to more carefully consider their diets to ensure they did not become deficient in these important nutrients.” (the horror! we’re already so conscious about consuming nutrients in sufficient amounts! (do we need the /s))
• “Current shifts in the food industry reveal we are aware we need to eat less meat and more vegetables, but there needs to be a sensible balance.”
• “A move to growing more on our doorstep and relying less on other countries seems a huge step forward, but certainly obtainable.”
• “In wealthy countries, the animal protein eaten is often well in excess of nutritional needs. The average Australian eats 300 grams of meat daily, but US authorities recommend only about half this amount. High-quality protein in excess of requirements is no better nutritionally than the equivalent kilojoule of grain.”
• “And of course, non-vegetarians don’t only eat meat: a hamburger has one layer of meat, but two layers of bun. Even allowing for somewhat lower direct cereal consumption, overall, non-vegetarians in Australia likely already consume, directly and indirectly, more grain per capita than vegetarians, and the gap will widen as beef cattle (and sheep) get more of their food from grain, as forecast. Professor Archer, in his widely-read article, is right to stress the environmental consequences of grain production (including mice deaths) but the body count is higher for a meat than a vegetarian diet.” (who would have guessed? oh, right, us vegans)
• “Professor Archer says, “The challenge for the ethical eater is to choose the diet that causes the least deaths and environmental damage”. I would add that it is not only animal deaths we should worry about, but also the quality of their lives. Poultry and pigs are reared in extremely cramped conditions because it increases the efficiency of conversion of feed into meat or eggs. In effect, animal suffering lowers the prices to consumers. Chicken Little was right. The sky has fallen - for chickens. 
• A recent article argues that staying within globally sustainable boundaries for both greenhouse gas emissions and reactive nitrogen mobilisation could require animal product reductions per capita to about 20% of their projected levels in 2050. If shared equally among all Earth’s people, Australians would need to cut consumption by as much as 10-fold. Our own health, animal welfare, and global equity would all be served by a modest first step: halving our meat consumption.” <—this line? the literal conclusion of the IFL Science article (also, Professor Archer’s article, although many of these sources say “recent”, is from 2011, which is not exactly as recent as academia generally means when it says recent, especially when singular years are being compared to each other)
• “It’s important to note that Archer’s and Davis’ arguments hinge on the comparison of pasture-fed cattle to field animal deaths (from grain harvests in particular in Archer’s case). They are comparing the most ideal practice of raising cattle to the least ideal practice of harvesting crops. If we were to instead compare deaths of factory farm and other grain-fed animals, which are the vast majority of animals used for food, to field animal deaths, the difference would be laughable. With our modern farming methods, it takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. therefore, non-vegans consume, whether directly or indirectly, more than 10 times the plant matter of vegans, thus compounding the deaths of the meat-animals with those of the field animals.  This is why Archer advocates the consumption of range-fed cattle for the reduction of both animal deaths and environmental destruction.”
• “While there are some advantageous [sic] to grass-fed cattle, and it is, in many ways, preferable to feedlots, the rangeland required is incredibly vast. This means habitat destruction on an epic scale coupled with the fact that there simply isn’t enough land to raise sufficient grass-fed cattle to meet current consumption demands.”
• “Now does this exempt vegans from owning the deaths we do cause? Absolutely not. We should certainly be aware of the harm we cause animals, whether intentional or not. The animals that suffer and die at our hands could care less about our intent. To them, the pain is the same. And I’ll be the first vegan to admit that I most certainly do inadvertently cause animal suffering. It’s inevitable. But that does not invalidate the vegan stance and the continual striving for the reduction of harm.  And studies with flawed and skewed data do not either.”

• “The environment is experiencing severe ecological devastation. Tropical species are on the decline, deforestation is rampant and American homeowners leave their sprinkler systems on continuously. Perhaps, as a conscientious steward of the planet, you’ve chosen to drive less or reduce water consumption. These small acts of material conservation will save the Earth from destruction, right? Well, despite environmental nonprofits asserting that climate change is caused by industrial expansion, the driving force behind climate change is something much simpler — meat production.” 
• “Reducing material consumption, such as turning off a sprinkler system, is a goal that everyone gets behind — regardless of political affiliation. These simple recommendations draw validation from friends and family. Driving less and choosing to walk or bike more is a rewarding practice. Yet, when it comes to actually saving the environment through dietary change, anger swells from even the staunchest environmentalists. It’s too much to ask, which is why nonprofits shy away from the issue. Vegans are cast as antiestablishment bigots. But understand that a vegan diet produces the equivalent of 50 percent less carbon dioxide, and uses 1/11 of the oil, 1/13 of the water and 1/18 of the land of meat production; the choice is clear. To truly address ecological devastation, and sustain the Earth’s expanding population, switching to a predominately vegan diet is not only important — it’s necessary.” {Utah Chronicle}
• “Food and beverage consumption has a great impact on the environment, although there is a lack of information concerning the whole diet. The environmental impact of 153 Italian adults (51 omnivores, 51 ovo-lacto-vegetarians, 51 vegans) and the inter-individual variability within dietary groups were assessed in a real-life context. Food intake was monitored with a 7-d dietary record to calculate nutritional values and environmental impacts (carbon, water, and ecological footprints). The Italian Mediterranean Index was used to evaluate the nutritional quality of each diet. The omnivorous choice generated worse carbon, water and ecological footprints than other diets. No differences were found for the environmental impacts of ovo-lacto-vegetarians and vegans, which also had diets more adherent to the Mediterranean pattern. A high inter-individual variability was observed through principal component analysis, showing that some vegetarians and vegans have higher environmental impacts than those of some omnivores. Thus, regardless of the environmental benefits of plant-based diets, there is a need for thinking in terms of individual dietary habits. To our knowledge, this is the first time environmental impacts of three dietary regimens are evaluated using individual recorded dietary intakes rather than hypothetical diet or diets averaged over a population.” {the abstract of an Italian study, as appears on the NIH website}
• “It may sound hyperbolic that our roast beef sandwich is contributing to environmental degradation of the planet. But mounting evidence of the impact requires our attention and action as global citizens.“
• “A study published in Nature found that, by 2050, a projected 80% increase in global greenhouse gas emissions from food production can be avoided, if the global diet is an equal-parts mixture of the Mediterranean, pescetarian and vegetarian diets. Within that spectrum, fewer animal products are what’s best for the planet, and our collective future. The Mediterranean diet alone (one that includes lower amounts of animal products) will still result in increased emissions, and the pescetarian diet (a vegetarian diet that includes fish) will lead to only a small degree of reduction in emissions. However, a global vegetarian diet, the same study showed, would be the most effective of all diets (not including vegan) in achieving a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as a decrease in agricultural land demand and land clearing. It follows that the vegan diet, by eliminating dairy and egg, would reduce emissions the most, as confirmed by a subsequent study. Adopting a plant-based diet is, therefore, one of the most powerful choices an individual can make in mitigating environmental degradation and depletion of Earth’s natural resources.” {CNN, albeit an opinion piece - but still one of the first results under the second search term}
• “But there is an unpalatable truth to face for those of us with a bag of quinoa in the larder. The appetite of countries such as ours for [quinoa] has pushed up prices to such an extent that poorer people in Peru and Bolivia, for whom it was once a nourishing staple food, can no longer afford to eat it. Imported junk food is cheaper. In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken. Outside the cities, and fuelled by overseas demand, the pressure is on to turn land that once produced a portfolio of diverse crops into quinoa monoculture. In fact, the quinoa trade is yet another troubling example of a damaging north-south exchange, with well-intentioned health and ethics-led consumers here unwittingly driving poverty there. It’s beginning to look like a cautionary tale of how a focus on exporting premium foods can damage the producer country’s food security. Feeding our apparently insatiable 365-day-a-year hunger for this luxury vegetable, Peru has also cornered the world market in asparagus. Result? In the arid Ica region where Peruvian asparagus production is concentrated, this thirsty export vegetable has depleted the water resources on which local people depend. NGOs report that asparagus labourers toil in sub-standard conditions and cannot afford to feed their children while fat cat exporters and foreign supermarkets cream off the profits. That’s the pedigree of all those bunches of pricy spears on supermarket shelves.”
• “…soya production is now one of the two main causes of deforestation in South America, along with cattle ranching, where vast expanses of forest and grassland have been felled to make way for huge plantations…To clarify: while soya is found in a variety of health products, the majority of production - 97% according to the UN report of 2006 - is used for animal feed.” 
• “a rummage through the shopping baskets of vegetarians and vegans swiftly clocks up the food miles, a consequence of their higher dependency on products imported from faraway places. From tofu and tamari to carob and chickpeas, the axis of the vegetarian shopping list is heavily skewed to global.” {The Guardian}