Plant-based diet is not so virtuous or healthy, says new book

Watch out, Big Broccoli — Jayne Buxton has your number.

The investigative journalist has combed through more than 1,200 sources and interviews to write “The Great Plant-Based Con” (Hachette), available on Kindle in the US and in hardback next year. In it, she unpacks why going meat-free won’t necessarily save your health or the planet. 

Buxton, who lives in the UK, felt compelled to write the book after questioning the bombardment of headlines touting the benefits and virtues of a meat-free diet. In 2021, it was reported that sales of meat were down 12 percent in the US, she writes.

“Around the middle of 2018, I noticed so many headlines and policy documents coming out, all saying extreme things about plant-based,” Buxton told The Post. “And I thought, we need a bit more balance in the argument.”

But the tipping point for her was the James Cameron-directed documentary “The Game Changers,” which champions vegan diets as superior to omnivorous diets and essential to human peak performance.

To Buxton, the 2018 film was pure propaganda, and she worried how its messaging would play among the public, particularly among young viewers.

“I thought the science was weak and young people were using it as a springboard to veganism. I could see that there might be a health crisis if people adopted these principles,” she said. “And I felt the counter message needed to get out there.”

Here are the commonly-held beliefs about plant-based living that Buxton challenges as myth — and why not only is it OK to order a hamburger sometimes, it may just be the best choice on the menu.

Myth: A plant-based diet will make you healthier

Buxton said that most people don’t necessarily understand the metabolic processes that take place in their body — and a lack of scientific understanding leads to confusion about what you need to survive.

Take protein. Not only does food need to contain protein, the protein needs to contain essential amino acids (EAAs). Animal proteins are effective in delivering them, while plant proteins may be missing some. A lack of EAAs may mean that plant proteins aren’t synthesized in the body as effectively.

In order to find the right amino acid levels, people would have to eat much larger quantities of plant proteins to achieve the desired effect, Buxton argues. She explains that hitting your daily EAA target with plant-based protein exclusively would mean eating 1.5 pounds of chickpeas or six cups of quinoa. Meanwhile, one egg provides 11% of protein needs for the day.

Buxton worries that over-processed vegan foods — such as nut milks, nut cheeses and soy-based meat substitutes — have a “health halo” despite not necessarily nourishing the body.

She recently grocery-shopped with the Telegraph and pointed out how an egg replacement product contained gum cellulose dextrose, asking, “That’s sugar. Do you want sugar with your eggs?”

“I think the big message would be to appreciate the nutrient value of different foods, including animal-based foods,” she told The Post. “We’ve put fruits and vegetables on a pedestal.” 

Myth: You can trust reports about studies

Every day, new headlines emerge about how bacon is bad, eggs are awful, and even fish isn’t as heart-healthy and nutritious as you might have thought. But Buxton found that, often, the research used to anchor these studies was either a small sample study, based on self-reported food diaries — which have the potential for inaccuracy — or anchored in correlation, not causation.

She cites one example, where a major newspaper reported on a study that found eating leafy greens could reverse aging by two years. Not included in the reporting: The subjects studied had also eaten three weekly servings of liver and up to 10 eggs a week.

“My wish would be that journalists would interrogate studies a little more before they report on them. That would be really helpful,” Buxton said.

Myth: A plant-based diet will help the planet

Buxton devotes the second part of her book to how consuming meat, chicken, dairy and fish affects the planet. What she found: Greatly reducing animal products has a minimal effect on the planet’s well being.

The 2015 documentary “Cowspiracy” cited that livestock and their byproducts accounted for 51% of worldwide methane gas emissions. While that number was later debunked, Buxton was shocked to see how low the actual amount may be. 

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock contribute 14.5% of total annual greenhouse gas emissions, but Buxton also found many scientists believe methane acts differently than other harmful gases, like CO2 — overestimating the impact of methane on global warming and underestimating the harmful effects of fossil-fuel based carbon dioxide emissions.

During her research, she found that some scholars, including Myles Allen, an Oxford University Professor and an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, believe that methane production by livestock has only a marginal effect on global warming.

“The grip of the problem is warming caused by fossil fuel use. Everything else is irrelevant,” says Buxton. “For me, that’s a crystallizing thought. Cutting out red meat is just a rearranging exercise.” 

Even scientists whose research suggests dietary shifts from meat acknowledge that doing so would only marginally decrease greenhouse gas emissions. One recent study suggested that if all of America went meat-free, global warming would only decrease by 6%, with scientists saying that fossil-fuel reduction, carbon sequestering and updating the transportation grid could substantially lower emissions.

Myth: It’s a smart way for an individual to fight climate change

Buxton says that people often want to cut out red meat because they feel they’re doing something productive for the planet, but this “virtual signaling” can cause them to misunderstand the impact on the environment.

“I have friends who told me they had given up red meat, and I asked why, and they were like, ‘Well, this is the one thing we can do.” And I responded, ‘Okay, that’s great, but you could eat a six-ounce steak three times a week for a year, and your emissions will be one-sixth less than that flight you just took across the Atlantic.”

She has also cited cutting dairy for milk alternatives; as the Telegraph pointed out, if a person’s “food footprint is a maximum of 16% of the total individual footprint and milk is a tiny proportion of that, the reduction of greenhouse gases is miniscule.”

But, Buxton said, “It allows individuals to keep on with their other carbon-generating habits in a guilt-free way.”

In her research, she found food waste to be a larger issue as well. “At least 30% of the food we produce is wasted in our homes, and I think we can really address the whole environmental emissions associated with food waste if we address that problem.” 

Currently, data shows that food waste in the United States produces as much carbon dioxide emissions as 42 coal-fired plants. This is due to the production, transportation, and processing of food, as well as the methane it produces as it decomposes in landfills. 

Myth: The old ways of eating are wrong

Buxton is quick to point out she has nothing against vegans. But she wants people to go into any diet with their eyes open.

Her research has led her to integrate animal products into her own diet more regularly.

According to the Telegraph, Buxton “now eats some animal-sourced foods — eggs, meat, cheese — alongside a variety of vegetables every day, including having meat for dinner three or four times a week, and a ‘nice 4-ounce steak’ about once a week.”

She also told The Post how she now eats eggs for breakfast rather than reaching for granola, adding that a locavore, omnivorous diet is one that may be best for the planet and for people’s nutrition profiles.

“I just want us to learn and sing the praises of the foods our grandparents ate. We’ve forgotten these real foods,” Buxton said. Already, she has found extensive support. “Farmers, parents, people who are interested in diet and health and nutrition are all saying ‘Thank you for saying something. I was beginning to think I was crazy.’”

And while Buxton has detractors, she invites them to challenge her research: “Question my 1,200 references if you’d like to. That’s fair game. But do not say I have no science backing my argument.”