Published Letters and Op-Eds from
COK’s Writers Group

In Most Cases, Vegan Diet is Most Sustainable

Dear Editor:

Deborah Seiler ("Vegan diet is not necessarily the most sustainable,") suggests that instead of going vegan, we raise backyard chickens. Let's ignore for the moment that most cities and suburbs, where the vast majority of Americans live, don't allow the practice.

Each American household eats about 100 chickens per year. Is this Ms. Seiler's recommended alternative to a vegan diet? Besides its wild impracticality, chickens are native to Southeast Asia, not the U.S. Won't this enormous population of non-native birds displace local wildlife?

Ms. Seiler also suggests hunting as an alternative, particularly when a species is invasive or overpopulated. First, imagine everyone in the U.S. hunting for their food. We'd wipe out wildlife in no time at all. Furthermore, hunting "solutions" often cause more problems than they solve. You reduce the population of one species and another species becomes overpopulated, and so forth. More humane and lasting wildlife management strategies include concerted development of sterilization techniques, reintroduction of predators, and curbing our own population growth.

What Ms. Seiler has done is identify marginal cases in which a vegan diet is not necessarily the most sustainable option. For the other 99 percent of us, a vegan diet is most efficient in terms of land, water and fossil fuel use, and greenhouse gas emissions. It is also the most nonviolent diet.

I agree with Ms. Seiler that a diet centered around locally grown produce and grains is more sustainable than one that relies heavily on processed foods. So let's shoot for that.

Gary Loewenthal,
Falls Church, Va.