Some argue that because forests are cut down in order to grow soybeans, people who consume tofu or soy milk are the ones driving deforestation. But is this correct? Or are palm oil, biofuels, or animal products the real drivers of deforestation?
Summary
- The expansion of grazing land to supply beef is the largest cause of deforestation (41%).
- Palm oil and soybean oil also contribute to 18.1% of deforestation. However, palm oil is the most land efficient crop for providing fats for human consumption.
- The soybeans driving deforestation are not used for human foods such as tofu or soy milk, but rather they are used for animal feed. The human demand for soybean oil has less impact on the demand for soybeans compared to demand for soybean meal as an animal feed. Soybeans are the most land efficient crop for supplying protein for human consumption.
- As our demand for animal products increases, more deforestation will be necessary to create the required grazing land and cropland for animal feed.
Deforestation in the past
When we drive through the countryside, we may see many grass fields and consider that to be the natural state of the land. In reality, 32% of the worlds grasslands were once forests, and 10% were previously wooded savannas.1 So far, humans have cleared approximately 46% of the world’s trees.2
Deforestation in the present
Humans cut down 15 billion trees every day.2 Tropical forests are the primary areas where deforestation is occurring, despite being home to much of the worlds biodiversity and a store for large quantities of carbon. In a future post I will dive into the importance of biodiversity in more detail. From the 1990s to the 2000s, the rate of deforestation increased by 62%. In South America, the rate of deforestation for expanding grazing lands and cultivating soybeans increased by 23-25%, and in Southeast Asia, the rate of deforestation increased by 124%.3 From 2005 to 2013, the beef industry caused 41% of tropical deforestation in order to expand grazing lands. So during that period, the beef industry caused the clearing of 2.1 million hectares of forest annually.4 This is equivalent to the clearing of a forest the size of Israel every year. Particularly in South America, the expansion of pasture has led to the majority of this deforestation. In South America, 71.2% of the deforested land became grazing lands, 14% became cropland, and only 1.7% was transformed into infrastructure such as roads and cities.5 Hence, from the perspective of deforestation, animal agriculture is indeed a much bigger issue compared to urban expansion.
What can we do about it?
In a scenario where we avoid any further deforestation by 2050, vegan and vegetarian diets are the dietary patters that lead to the least greenhouse gases. As these diets lead to the reduced cultivation of crops for animal feed, these diets would actually lead to net carbon storage through reforestation and rewilding. In fact, reducing the consumption of animal products is more important for ensuring forest preservation and limiting greenhouse gas emissions than increasing crop yield per unit land. In particular, consuming less food from ruminant animals such as cows has the biggest impact.6 As our demand for animal products decreases, there will be less need to use land, resulting in less deforestation as we do not need to expand grazing land or cropland.
Are we responsible for deforestation occurring in other countries?
If most of the deforestation is occurring in South America, and if we do not live there ourselves, are we then not responsible for that deforestation? Well, not exactly. If the country we live in imports beef or animal feed such as soybeans from deforested regions, our purchase of those products creates demand for future deforestation. Between 29-39% of greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation are a result of international demand and trade.7 We indirectly contribute to deforestation by importing products linked to deforestation, even if we do not directly engage in deforestation within our borders.
But aren’t there low-income out there who farmers rely on international trade? This statement holds some truth. Hence, rather than ceasing imports altogether, it is better to support farmers, companies, and countries who engage in sustainable practices and forest conservation. Of course, it is also important for countries heavily engaged in deforestation such as Brazil to work on reducing domestic consumption of animal products. Developing countries often aim to generate income through expanding agriculture which leads to deforestation. Developed countries have in the past already profited from deforestation and continue to do so by using previously deforested land. Moreover, many low-income farmers are simply trying to survive. Hence, we should not place the blame entirely on them. Instead, focusing on companies, countries, and the system as a whole is more appropriate. Developed countries need to provide economic alternatives to developing countries to prevent deforestation. We all reap benefits from forests, so we ought to contribute a little in order to continue benefiting. In a similar way, we must strive to prevent deforestation due to the expansion of animal agriculture in Africa.8
What about palm oil?
Palm oil, along with crops like soybeans, have led to 18.4% of deforestation. The majority of palm oil expansion occurs in Indonesia and Malaysia.4 So, does food containing palm oil always lead to negative environmental impacts? In fact, palm oil provides much more oil per unit of land compared to other crops. For instance, per unit of produced oil, palm oil occupies about 4 times less land than sunflower oil and canola oil, 6.4 times less land than soybean oil, and 11.3 times less land than olive oil and coconut oil.9 Therefore, if we want to meet our current demand for oil while minimising land use, cultivating palm oil is actually the most efficient option. If palm oil were to replace other crops, it would lead to more land use and potentially contribute to more deforestation.
Nevertheless, palm oil thrives in tropical regions.10 So, how can we realistically and sustainably meet the global demand for oil? On the demand side, we as consumers can look up whether the food we consume includes palm oil sourced from deforested lands before purchasing. Additionally, reducing the global demand for oil crops can lead to lower land use. For instance, we can consume fewer oil containing processed foods. However, the world will always require some level of oil production, and developing nations are likely to consume more oil containing processed foods in the future. So, these countries may need to implement policies to prevent this.
On the supply side, cultivating palm oil in already existing agricultural lands in the tropics is the best approach. For instance, if palm oil were cultivated on tropical agricultural lands currently used to grow animal feed, we could efficiently supply fats without causing more deforestation. We already have sufficient crop land, but it is currently occupied by animal agriculture. Another viable option is to cultivate sunflower and canola oil in existing non-tropical croplands rather than resorting to deforestation for palm oil in the tropics. Additionally, we must avoid using palm oil from deorested land for biofuels. Instead, prioritising the direct use of these oils in food is more important.11
Do soy-based foods like soy milk and tofu cause deforestation?
In the previous section, I mentioned that deforestation occurs to create cropland for growing soybeans in South America. So, do soy-based foods like tofu and soy milk contribute to deforestation? The most common farm animal feeds are soy, corn, and pasture. The cultivation of these three types of feed account for 67% of agriculturally driven deforestation.12 Due to the significant deforestation caused in order to provide soy for animal feed, soy as a whole unfortunately has gained a negative environmental reputation.
Soybean oil is the liquid fat extracted from a soybean and soybean meal is a powder consisting primarily of protein and carbohydrates. 70% of soy is processed into soybean meal and 99% of soybean meal is used as animal feed. 7% of produced soy is left as whole soybeans that are then fed to animals. Hence, a total of 77% of soy ends up as animal feed. In fact, chickens and pigs alone consume 57% of all soy produced. A further 17% of soy is processed into soybean oil. Humans consume 80% of soybean oil, which is often found in various processed foods. 17% of soybean oil is used for biofuel, and 3% of soybean oil is in other industries. Only 6% of soy is used for human consumption in products like tofu, soy milk, edamame, or plant-based meat alternatives.13 The graph below illustrates the demand for soy, which as you can see is predominantly driven by animal feed.
In general, soybeans cultivated in South America are genetically modified and not included in soy products for human consumption. Instead, non genetically modified soy grown in Europe and other countries are typically used in products for human consumption. The increased global demand for soy-based food products cannot account for the increased deforestation attributed to soy. Instead, soybeans fed to farm animals are the primary driver.14
In fact, soybeans themselves are one of our most sustainable crops. They are among the most efficient crops in providing protein per unit of land. Therefore, if we want to supply the maximum amount of protein for human consumption while simultaneously using the least amount of land, growing soybeans is the optimal choice. However, feeding these soybeans to animals significantly diminishes this high land-use efficiency due to farmed animals’ high feed conversion ratio.13 Similarly, consuming soy milk directly is more efficient than feeding soybeans to cows and then consuming their milk.14 Furthermore, soybeans can fix nitrogen directly from the atmosphere and so require less chemical fertiliser, and they are an easily scalable crop that can be stored for long periods of time, making them an excellent choice for sustainable human food production.13
Is soymeal just a by-product of the soybean oil industry?
But isn’t it the soybean oil industry that creates the demand from soybeans, and then we just feed the by product (ie. soybean meal) to animals. From this perspective, animal agriculture can present itself as avoiding waste. But is this true? Firstly, about 80% of a soybean consists of protein and carbohydrates, not fat.15 If our aim is specifically to provide fat in the form of oil, it would be more efficient to produce oils like palm oil, sunflower oil, or canola oil as mentioned previously.9 In reality, due to the extensive cultivation of soy-based animal feed, the supply of soybean oil is high, which lowers its price, leading many industries to use this inexpensive fat source. However, if we were to produce less soy-based animal feed, soybean oil would become more expensive, potentially prompting industries to use fats from alternative sources. Industries relying on co-product oils will need to adapt. That is how a “fair” capitalistic industry works, where industries respond to supply and demand, competing with one another. The world will not transition to veganism overnight. Hence, if we reduced our demand for soy based animal feeds, these industries will have plenty of time to adapt. Of course, we should use the soybean oil from soybeans cultivated for human consumption. However, there is no need to cultivate as many soybeans as we currently do to meet the global demand for oil and fat.
How does a farmer decide which crops to cultivate? They must consider factors such as location, climate, and soil quality. However, they also take into account the profit that they can obtain from the crops. In terms of value per kilogram, soybean oil is more valuable than soybean meal. So, would a farmer choose to cultivate soybeans for the purpose of soybean oil, rather than for the purpose of soybean meal for animal feed? This argument holds true from a relative perspective. It should be notes that over time the prices of soybean oil and soybean meal fluctuate, and the prices of each of these commodities are interrelated. As of October 2023, soybean oil is about three times more valuable than soybean meal per kilogram.16 However, from an absolute perspective, the ratio of soybean oil to soybean meal within a soybean per kilogram is about 4 to 1.13 This means that 56% of the value of a soybean is the soybean meal. It is also important to consider the comparison on a per calorie basis. Soybean oil has a calorie density about 2.5 times higher than soybean meal.17 Soy on a caloric basis, soybean meal is about three times more valuable than soybean oil per soybean. Regardless of how we compare the two products, it is clear that animal feed is a major economic driver for the increased demand for soy. While soybean oil is one of the cheapest oils, soy bean meal is one of the most valuable animal feeds due to it’s high content of essential amino acids. Both soybean meal and soybean oil contribute to the increased demand for soy, but animal feed is the primary driver.13 Claims that soy-based animal feeds have little impact are clearly incorrect.
From an ethical standpoint, whether animal feed is the primary demand for soy or not is irrelevant. Raising and killing billions of animals unnecessarily just to use a byproduct is not a sufficient justification. Furthermore, if soybean meal were truly a byproduct of the soybean oil industry, feeding the soybean meal to humans instead of animals would be much more efficient. Feeding soybean meal to animals when it could be used for human consumption is a waste. We can incorporate soybean men into our cooking and use it fin plant-based meat alternatives for example.
What about biofuels?
Biofuels have contributed to less than 6% of deforestation in Brazil.18 Biofuels are not a necessary part of our future energy system. It is indeed beneficial to convert crop byproducts into biofuels to supplement our energy needs. However, the majority of future energy will come from renewable sources like solar panels and wind turbines. There is no need to clear forests and grow crops to produce biofuels. In particular, crops for biofuels should not compete with human food security or contribute to deforestation. Soon, we will be able to produce oil, protein, and carbohydrates by cultivating microorganisms and through this technology, we can create biofuels.19 Of course, this technology is in its infancy and will need to overcome challenges in order to become scalable. However, by supplying food and biofuels in a more efficient way, we can address many issues simultaneously without relying on traditional methods.
Does the production of soy for animal feed still cause deforestation today?
Due to agreements aimed at preventing deforestation, the deforestation caused by soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon has thankfully decreased. However, to further prevent the expansion of soy cultivation in adjacent regions like the Cerrado, these agreements should be extended in their scope.20,21 Additionally, these days cropland for soybeans are replacing grazing that were originally created through deforestation.22 As a result, rather than replacing the forests directly, soybeans grown for animal feed are still indirectly contributing to deforestation.
Which industries increase the demand for corn?
Corn crops are typically processed into cornmeal, high fructose corn syrup, and biofuels. For example, in the United States, 40 percent of corn is fed to animals, while 36 percent is processed into biofuels.23 So, while the sole purpose of corn is not to serve as animal feed, it is one of the primary drivers of demand. Similar to soybeans, because we grow so much corn for animal feed, the supply of corn increases which reduces the price and so many industries utilise this cheap source of sugar. However, if we grew less corn based animal feed, the price of corn would rise, and industries would turn to alternative sources of sugar. High fructose corn syrup is an unnecessary food additive and can be replaced with alternatives. Furthermore, due to its negative health effects, eliminating high fructose corn syrup from our diets would lead to overall positive outcomes. Rather than feeding corn to animals, a more efficient protein supply can be achieved by feeding corn to microorganisms.24,25
Other crops grown for human consumption also contribute to deforestation. However, it is possible to feed the entire world without resorting to further deforestation, simply by making better use of existing land. In an upcoming post addressing food security, I will dive deeper into this topic.
Conclusion
The expansion of grazing lands for beef production is the leading cause of deforestation. Palm oil and soybean cultivation also account for 18% of deforestation. However, palm oil is the most land efficient crop for supplying fats for human consumption. If we were to cultivate palm oil ion land currently being occupied to grow animal feed , we could meet global demand for oil without further deforestation. The deforestation caused by soybean production is not a result of human foods like tofu or soy milk, but rather it is a result of animal feed. In particular, chickens and pigs consume a significant quantity of soy. Soybean oil for human consumption has less impact on the demand for soy than soybean meal used for animal feed. In fact, soy is the most efficient crop in terms of supplying protein for humans while simultaneously using less land. Additionally, a significant portion of corn is used as animal feed. If our demand for animal products increases, more land will be needed to create more pasture and cropland, leading to further deforestation. Even if you do not want to go fully vegan, reducing consumption of animal products like beef, chicken, and pork, can significantly lower your dietary land footprint and the deforestation that goes with that. In parallel, by eating fewer animal-based foods we can lower greenhouse gas emissions from food production and increase the potential for carbon sequestration through reforestation.
References
1. Searchinger TD, Wirsenius S, Beringer T, Dumas P. Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature. 2018;564(7735):249-253.
2. Crowther TW, Glick HB, Covey KR, et al. Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature. 2015;525(7568):201-205.
3. Kim DH, Sexton JO, Townshend JR. Accelerated deforestation in the humid tropics from the 1990s to the 2000s. Geophysical Research Letters. 2015;42(9):3495-3501.
4. Pendrill F, Persson UM, Godar J, Kastner T. Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition. Environmental Research Letters. 2019;14(5):055003.
5. De Sy V, Herold M, Achard F, et al. Land use patterns and related carbon losses following deforestation in South America. Environmental Research Letters. 2015;10(12):124004.
6. Theurl MC, Lauk C, Kalt G, et al. Food systems in a zero-deforestation world: Dietary change is more important than intensification for climate targets in 2050. Science of The Total Environment. 2020;735:139353.
7. Pendrill F, Persson UM, Godar J, et al. Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions. Global Environmental Change. 2019;56:1-10.
8. Williams DR, Clark M, Buchanan GM, Ficetola GF, Rondinini C, Tilman D. Proactive conservation to prevent habitat losses to agricultural expansion. Nature Sustainability. 2021;4(4):314-322.
9. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). FAOSTAT: Crops and livestock products. 2023; www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL, 2023.
10. Wahid MB, Abdullah SNA, IE H. Oil Palm—Achievements and Potential—. Plant Production Science. 2005;8(3):288-297.
11. Ritchie H. Drivers of Deforestation. 2021; https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation.
12. Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. 2018;360(6392):987-992.
13. Fraanje W, Garnett T. Soy: food, feed, and land use change. Foodsource: Building Blocks) Food Climate Research Network, University of Oxford. 2020.
14. Bailey T. Letter to the editor. Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition. 2020;8(3):101-104.
15. Hou A, Chen P, Alloatti J, et al. Genetic Variability of Seed Sugar Content in Worldwide Soybean Germplasm Collections. Crop Science. 2009;49(3):903-912.
16. Business Insider. Soybean Oil. 2023; https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/soybean-oil-price.
17. Cronometer. 2023; https://cronometer.com/.
18. Lima M, Skutsch M, de Medeiros Costa G. Deforestation and the social impacts of soy for biodiesel: perspectives of farmers in the South Brazilian Amazon. Ecology and Society. 2011;16(4).
19. Pander B, Mortimer Z, Woods C, et al. Hydrogen oxidising bacteria for production of single-cell protein and other food and feed ingredients. Engineering Biology. 2020;4(2):21-24.
20. Gibbs HK, Rausch L, Munger J, et al. Brazil’s Soy Moratorium. Science. 2015;347(6220):377-378.
21. Soterroni AC, Ramos FM, Mosnier A, et al. Expanding the Soy Moratorium to Brazil’s Cerrado. Science Advances. 2019;5(7):eaav7336.
22. Barona E, Ramankutty N, Hyman G, Coomes OT. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters. 2010;5(2):024002.
23. United State Department of Agriculture. Feed Grains Sector at a Glance. 2023; https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feed-grains/feed-grains-sector-at-a-glance/.
24. Ritala A, Häkkinen ST, Toivari M, Wiebe MG. Single Cell Protein—State-of-the-Art, Industrial Landscape and Patents 2001–2016. Frontiers in microbiology. 2017;8.
25. Raziq A, Lateef M, Ullah A, Ullah H, Khan MW. 02. Single cell protein (SCP) production and potential substrates: A comprehensive review. Pure and Applied Biology (PAB). 2020;9(3):1743-1754.