The Daily Mail just published an article that has completely made our heads spin in shock. The article claims that “being vegetarian does more harm to the environment than eating meat.” In fact, that’s the exact headline, and it’s more of an assertion than it even is a claim.
The author of the article cites a study that has perpetrated one of the worst false equivalencies I have ever seen. The study suggests that eating specific vegetarian products that are shipped from abroad is worse than eating locally sourced beef and lamb.
First and foremost, it is a flawed argument because it is comparing apples to oranges. Why compare outsourced tofu and Quorn brand products to locally sourced meat? Why not compare locally sourced plant-based foods to locally sourced meats?
The second mistake it makes is it assumes that all meat-eaters in the UK exclusively eat locally sourced meat, and all vegetarians in the UK — for some odd reason — eat an equal amount of Quorn products and tofu, exclusively. I’m not British, but I have been a vegetarian for close to 15 years, and I’m honestly not sure if I’ve ever eaten anything made by Quorn — I don’t think I have. It’s also completely bogus because Brits love their McDonalds, KFC, and other fast-food dives as much as we do, and I certainly doubt the chains in Europe are only using grass-fed, locally raised cows, chickens, etc…
I could expect an article like this from Fox News, but I thought the Daily Mail had a little more class than this. Apparently I was mistaken. Let’s just hope the masses aren’t dumb enough to buy into this kind of specious reasoning.
Leave a Reply