Home / H. Environment, ecology and agriculture / Part IND
"Vegans' soy is destroying the Amazon."
about 77% of the world's soy becomes animal feed, and only about 7% becomes foods such as tofu and soy milk. Meat eaters consume far more soy, indirectly, than vegans. And the main driver of tropical deforestation is pasture for cattle: between 2005 and 2013, it accounted for about 41% of deforestation in the tropics.
Short answer
About 77% of the world's soy becomes animal feed, and only about 7% becomes tofu, soy milk and other foods. Meat eaters consume far more soy, indirectly, than vegans. And the main driver of tropical deforestation is pasture: about 41% of deforestation in the tropics between 2005 and 2013. If the concern is the forest, the problem lies on the plate with meat.
For children
Most of the world's soy doesn't become tofu: it becomes food for pigs, chickens and cattle. And many forests are cut down to make pasture for cattle. So people who eat meat use much more soy and land than people who eat tofu.
"If 77% of soy becomes feed, who eats more soy on average: the vegan or someone who eats chicken and pork?"
Como pode aparecer
"Tofu causes deforestation."
"You eat the soy that destroys forests."
"Veganism is destroying the Amazon."
"Your soy milk cleared the Amazon."
"Soy expansion is a driver of deforestation."
"Soy causes female hormones and cancer." (which is G7)
The strongest version
"Tofu causes deforestation. You eat the soy that destroys forests."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1The expansion of soy contributes to deforestation in the Amazon and the Cerrado.
- P2Vegans eat soy products, such as tofu and soy milk.
- P3So vegans contribute to deforestation.
- CSo veganism isn't environmentally superior.
P1 is true. So is P2. P3 is true on a small scale. The problem lies in the conclusion: it ignores where almost all soy goes, and who consumes it.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails because it leaves out that livestock farming consumes most of the soy and is the main driver of deforestation.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument ignores where soy goes:
Where soy goes Approximate share Animal feed 77% Oil, biofuels and industrial uses About 16% Direct foods (tofu, soy milk, tempeh, edamame) About 7% - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Most soy feeds animals.
According to Our World in Data, 77% of the world's soy is used as feed. Only a small share becomes direct human food.
2. Meat uses far more soy.
Because animals convert feed into meat with large losses, people who eat chicken and pork indirectly consume far more soy than people who eat tofu.
3. Pasture is the main driver.
Between 2005 and 2013, the expansion of cattle pasture was responsible for about 41% of tropical deforestation, according to a study by Pendrill and colleagues. Soy, oil palm and other oilseeds together accounted for about 18%, and much of that soy becomes feed.
4. Plant diets use far less land.
According to Poore and Nemecek, a global vegan diet would reduce farmland by about 75%.
5. Soy can come from sources less linked to deforestation.
It's possible to prefer traceable soy, and there are many other legumes. The Amazon Soy Moratorium, in force since 2006, already restricts purchases of soy from deforested areas in the Amazon, although the Cerrado remains under pressure.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Our World in Data, soy 77% of soy becomes feed; about 7% becomes direct human food Global data Our World in Data, drivers of deforestation Cattle pasture caused about 41% of tropical deforestation; oilseeds, including soy and oil palm, about 18% Based on Pendrill et al., 2019, data from 2005 to 2013 Our World in Data, land use and diets A global vegan diet would reduce farmland by about 75% Based on Poore and Nemecek, 2018 - d
The strongest counter-reply: tofu soy can also cause deforestation
The most serious version grants all this, but says that, even in a small share, the soy vegans eat may come from deforested areas.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
The proportion matters.
Eating less meat reduces soy use far more than avoiding tofu.
Origin can be chosen.
Vegans can prefer brands with traceable soy, or other legumes.
The argument favors veganism.
If the concern is soy, the solution is to eat fewer animals.
- f
Back to the moral question
The environmental argument, examined properly, favors plant diets. But beyond the forest, there are the animals: the soy that becomes feed nourishes billions of animals raised to die. The moral question returns: what justifies raising and killing them?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Omitting data
Tu quoque
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Not knowing the supply chain
Biases
Confirmation bias
Accepts information that blames vegans without checking
General literature on confirmation bias
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if a food contributes a little to a harm, whoever eats it is as responsible as whoever consumes most of it".
If it applied to…WaterTap to see
Someone who drinks a glass would be as responsible as an industry wasting millions of liters
No one concludes this
If it applied to…FuelTap to see
Someone who cycles and sometimes takes the bus would pollute as much as someone who drives every day
No one concludes this
If it applied to…SoyTap to see
The vegan would be as responsible as the meat eater
The numbers show the opposite
Contradictions
And consumes far more soy than a vegan.
The main driver of deforestation.
Present in a great many kitchens.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Soy expansion does contribute to deforestation, and where food comes from matters for everyone, vegans included. It's legitimate to demand traceability and to call for an end to deforestation linked to any crop.
But
But the data show that soy is mostly feed, and that pasture is the biggest driver of deforestation. If the concern is the forest, a plant diet is the choice that protects it most.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after