People love a failed vegetarian story, don\u2019t they? And perhaps you\u00a0came across this one\u00a0\u2013 an interview with ex-veggie and Argentinean ecologist, Claudio Bertonatti. Whilst it is wise to agree with some of the points Claudio raises in his work, such as\u00a0our food choices directly linking with environmental welfare, the concern of species extinction and climate change being detrimental to our land \u2013 perhaps we should question his motive when it comes to the solution. Claudio begins by saying: \u201cI thought that by becoming a vegetarian, I\u2019d avoid killing so many animals. But then I changed my mind.\u201d Continuing with,\u00a0\u201cAs a vegetarian, I was helping to prevent the death and suffering of domestic animals but not of wild species\u201d, \u00a0and thus he returned to eating an omnivorous diet. But the notion that \u2018not killing Group A, isn\u2019t saving Group B, so we may as well go back to killing Group A\u2019 simply isn't logical. Later in the interview, he goes on to talk about the biodiversity of the grasslands in Argentina, however\u00a0states that \u201cthe farmer also persecutes any wildlife and kills\u00a0any animals he considers harmful to production\u201d. Interestingly a USDA study on wildlife damage in the US shows that 3.2 million mostly wild and native species\u00a0were killed mainly to protect livestock. Specifically on the\u00a0topic of indirect animal deaths in crop cultivation he says \u201cwheat, rice, corn. Most vegans eat these things. The first impact of mass cultivation is deforestation: we force nature out to make room for crops\u201d implying that the impact of farming vegetables is more harmful than that of cattle raising. Claudio\u2019s overall response highlights that killing animals in food production is unavoidable (and this is true) however,\u00a0without any backing evidence, claims that cultivation of crops destroys wildlife habitat whereas cattle\u00a0grazing increases and promotes it. The interviewer\u00a0poignantly notes that \u201cThere\u2019s evidence that the resources required for meat are far greater than those required for vegetables and that crops make up a large part of these resources: a high percentage of them are used to feed livestock\u201d. Claudio doesn\u2019t deny this and even admits that even though the majority of soy crops are fed to livestock, he will continue to\u00a0consume livestock \u2026because of the harm crop-growth causes wildlife? Hmm? The World Resource Institute says that \u201cBy the best global average estimates, beef converts only 1% of gross animal feed energy into food for people\u201d\u00a0meaning that the other 99% is essentially wasted. You can think about this more simply \u2013 beef cattle will consume anywhere between 4 and 8lb of grain per day, a significantly higher amount than your average human \u2013 so with that being said, if we want to reduce the amount of accidental animal deaths in the farming of these grains,\u00a0we need to scale back on the demand \u2013 this means looking at the biggest grain consumer, i.e., our friend Daisy. Essentially then, if we want to stop feeding the majority of our grain to livestock, their populous depletes. And what does that mean in practical terms? Eating. Less. Meat..... or, none, preferably. Additionally, if we take a look at the comparison of indirect species death from harvesting cropland, we can see that the number of animals killed to produce 1 million calories is significantly higher in animal agriculture compared to plants: Moving on, let's address the obnoxious title\u00a0\u201cVegans and Vegetarians Don\u2019t Think They Kill Animals But They Do\u201d. \u00a0Vegans know full well they are accountable for harm and that veganism at its core is about reducing it where possible and practical, not self-purity. The intention of the title and entire article is\u00a0to lessen the guilt of those who choose to eat meat \u2013 the fact that some animals die in the process of growing our soybeans doesn\u2019t negate the purpose of veganism\u00a0like this journalist wants us to think. So no, vegans shouldn\u2019t just give up because they \u201ccan\u2019t live a life without causing zero animal deaths\u201d the lifestyle\u00a0clearly causes less harm than any other. Throughout the article, it is apparent\u00a0that Claudio believes veganism is not compatible with nature conservation, and is essentially a waste of time when it comes to environmental benefits, yet fails to back up any of his opinions with statistics or hard evidence. When you realize that Claudio\u2019s article on \u201cconfused\u201d vegans was written for a website focusing mainly on livestock news, one does begin to wonder if he just has a conflict of interest.