No mention of transportation costs and environmental impact.
Vegan diets usually require foodstuffs that are transported from thousands of miles away, often overseas.
I also find it very ironic that some egghead that lives and works in a concrete building built on a concrete and asphalt plot of land, in the middle of a concrete and asphalt desert spanning hundreds of square miles can lecture people about water and land usage in rural locations.
Exactly right on the "green foods" transportation costs. These people rant about stuff like "locally grown" but they are still eating "organic peaches" in December. I recall reading recently that locally grown beef uses way less "Earth resources" than bananas shipped from South America. So in some ways the research has its points: rich people that can afford, and create a demand for, exotic and other "health and Earth friendly foods" can also create unintended consequences to their cause. Eating a steak may be more "Earth friendly" than eating a kiwi from New Zealand.
Also, these researchers are no eggheads - they are simply political pundits. What they did is the equivalent of saying "All those black people eating fried chicken and washing it down with malt liquor are increasing healthcare costs." Had they looked at this strictly as "where does food come from" there might have been some value to the study. Once they insert dumbass words like "latinix", they lose all scientific credibility.
I also would have to ask them how they collected their data to inject race into this. Seems like they would have to find cooperating individuals to build a sample set of food consumed by race. Going to the report link, information on data collection was terribly generalized.
