DEAR PEOPLE, here's a new little study on omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans that's interesting for four reasons:

1) Even though the study was technically about the environmental impact of different degrees of animal-foodlessness, it contains a very helpful table confirming a complaint that some of us (HI THERE) have about most omnivore-versus-veg studies. Namely, that vegans and vegetarians have diets that differ from omnivores in much greater ways than just animal food consumption, making it hard to tease out the effects of specifically ditching animal products. Table 2 here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/…/artic…/PMC5522483/table/Tab2/) shows that omnivores ate more sweets and desserts, drank more alcohol, ate fewer vegetables, ate less fruit, and ate fewer nuts than the non-meat-eaters -- i.e., an overall crappier diet.

2) In general, omnivores had a greater environmental impact than vegetarians and vegans in this study, but it wasn't universal. Some omnivores left a smaller footprint than some vegetarians and vegans. So, anyone who stops eating meat (and beyond) shouldn't assume they're treading more softly on mother earth -- many other variables come into play, including the sourcing of animal products and what those animal foods get replaced with.

3) Despite the rumor that vegan diets are lowest on the impact totem pole, this study found no significant difference in the environmental impact of lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets and strict vegan ones.

4) And finally, the two participants with the highest environmental impact were... drumroll please... fruitarians.

Full text here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522483/