The Claim
“But soy causes deforestation, almonds use too much water, and avocados are bad for the environment too.”
Soy, Avocados, and Almonds Are Bad for the Environment Too
Quick Answer
Approximately 75-77% of global soy feeds livestock, not humans. Even the most resource-intensive plant foods produce dramatically fewer emissions, use less land, and require less water than animal products. Beef requires 1,799 gallons of water per pound versus 39 for vegetables. The "but almonds!" argument is a distraction from the real driver of food-system environmental destruction.
Supported by 5 cited sources
What People Usually Mean
People using this argument point to the environmental costs of specific plant foods — soy-driven deforestation, almond water usage, avocado transport — to suggest that vegan diets are not actually better for the environment. The implication is that all food has environmental costs, so switching to plants is pointless or hypocritical.
Key Points
- 1Approximately 75-77% of global soy is used for animal feed. Only 7% is used for direct human foods like tofu, soy milk, and tempeh. Blaming vegans for soy deforestation is pointing the finger in the wrong direction (WWF).
- 2Almond milk produces 3x fewer greenhouse gas emissions and uses 9x less land than dairy milk, despite being one of the more resource-intensive plant milks (Our World in Data).
- 3Plant-based meat uses 79% less land, 95% less water, and reduces water pollution by 93% compared to conventional animal meat (Good Food Institute LCA).
- 4Beef requires 1,799 gallons of water per pound; pork 576; chicken 520. Vegetables require 39 gallons per pound; fruits 115 gallons (FoodPrint).
- 5Animal agriculture accounts for 80% of agricultural land use while providing only 20% of global protein and 9% of global calories.
- 6Per gram of protein, beef uses 6x more water than pulses (lentils, chickpeas). Even the least efficient plant protein sources outperform the most efficient animal sources.
Evidence Summary
{"whatPeopleMean":"People using this argument point to the environmental costs of specific plant foods — soy-driven deforestation, almond water usage, avocado transport — to suggest that vegan diets are not actually better for the environment. The implication is that all food has environmental costs, so switching to plants is pointless or hypocritical.","quickRebuttal":"Approximately 75-77% of global soy goes to animal feed, not tofu.
Some specific plant foods do have notable environmental concerns: almond water use in California, palm oil deforestation, quinoa demand affecting Andean communities, air-freighted produce. A thoughtful plant-based diet considers these, but the overall environmental advantage of plant-based eating is not in question.
What This Gets Right
Some plant foods do have significant environmental costs. Almond cultivation uses substantial water in drought-prone California. Avocado demand has driven deforestation in some regions. Transportation of exotic foods adds emissions. These are real concerns worth addressing within a plant-based framework.
Supporting Evidence
Based on WWF analysis of global soy production and use data. EUFIC reports similar figures.
Based on water footprint calculations from FoodPrint, incorporating green, blue, and grey water.
From Good Food Institute lifecycle assessment comparing commercial plant-based meat products to conventional animal meat.
From the landmark Poore & Nemecek (2018) meta-analysis in Science, covering 38,700 farms across 119 countries.
The Bottom Line
Pointing to the environmental cost of almonds or avocados while eating animal products is like criticizing someone for using a paper straw while you drink from a fire hose. The scale of impact is not comparable. Even the most impactful plant foods are dramatically better than animal products.
Sources & Evidence
5 sources cited across 4 claims
77% of soy feeds livestock, not humans
ObservationalBeef: 1,799 gal/lb vs vegetables: 39 gal/lb
ModelingPlant-based meat: 79% less land, 95% less water
ModelingPlant-based diets free 76% of agricultural land
Meta-Analysis