Bad side-effects of ‘ethical’ food choice

Sir, – Understandably, Leon Fields, who is either a vegan or vegetarian, asks us to consider a meat-free Christmas while also highlighting the damage that farming does to the environment (Letters, December 21).

This is a lifestyle choice centred around the ethical treatment of animals and as such deserves due respect. Some factory farming practices do warrant closer scrutiny but the vast majority of livestock are farmed with due care and respect.

There are frequently some unintended consequences to our actions, however worthy they may appear, and so it is with plant-based diets.

It is true that soya, grown as an animal feed, destroys rainforests but the crop is also widely used by vegans, as are quinoa, avocado, lentils, almonds and vegetables which must travel many food miles from Africa and the Americas.

Such foods constitute the staple diets of traditional

consumers in their country of origin, especially the urban poor, who are finding them increasingly scarce and unaffordable.

Almonds’ high requirement for water is severely depleting underground aquifers in California, causing land subsidence, while quinoa farming is extending into ecologically fragile areas and avocado demand is driving illegal deforestation in Mexico.

It is therefore worth pausing to fully evaluate the consequences of what appear to be ethical choices before passing judgment. I certainly wish Leon Fields peace and goodwill, but in addition to the preceding factors he might also like to consider an adaptation of the old saying, “All (healthy) things in moderation”.

Neil J Bryce. Gateshaw Cottage, Kelso.