The Nobel Prize-winning novel of year 2024 The Vegetarian by Han Kang is a haunting meditation on self-determination, free will, societal conformity, and the visceral weight of our dietary choices. The main character, Yeong-hye, makes a drastic decision to stop eating meat, which isolates her from those around her. She describes a haunting dream: “I had a dream… I was standing in a dense forest. Sunlight filtered down through the leaves, but the trees were dripping with blood.” Her story feels both intensely personal and universally relevant. As we face a climate crisis, her struggle forces us to ask: what does it truly mean to consume? Can we eat in a way that nurtures rather than harms?
Unlike Yeong-hye’s lonely descent, today’s discourse on ethical eating is a cacophony of voices and labels: vegetarian, vegan, flexitarian, pescetarian. Each offers a roadmap toward a more sustainable planet, but which one truly leads us there? Or are we all just wandering through the supermarket aisles of moral ambiguity?
Think about the rising popularity of documentaries like Cowspiracy and Seaspiracy. These films expose the environmental impact of animal agriculture and fishing, influencing public perception and driving dietary shifts. This shows that the media plays a large role in dietary changes.
Veganism-
Veganism is the most uncompromising stance against animal agriculture. It eliminates all animal products—meat, dairy, eggs, even honey—erasing the environmental footprint of livestock from one’s plate. And the numbers are striking. A vegan diet generates only 2.9 kilograms of CO₂ per day, compared to 7.2 kilograms for a standard meat-eater. If everyone switched to a vegan diet, we could free up an enormous amount of land—about 75% of all farmland—giving nature the space to recover. Water use would also drop drastically, since producing just one kilogram of beef requires a staggering 15,000 liters of water. In comparison, growing plant-based foods like beans, grains, and vegetables uses far less water and resources. It does not end there they also stop using all animal based products like silk, leather and a lot more.
But veganism, for all its ecological virtues, is not without its critics. The dietary shift requires careful planning to avoid nutritional deficiencies, and global accessibility remains a challenge. Moreover, plant-based substitutes— almond milk, coconut oil—have their own environmental drawbacks, from deforestation to excessive water use.
Consider the rise of plant-based meat alternatives. Companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are investing heavily in research and development, creating products that mimic the taste and texture of meat. This innovation could make veganism more accessible and appealing to a wider audience.
Vegetarianism-
If giving up cheese and eggs completely feels too difficult, vegetarianism offers a balanced alternative. It cuts out meat but still includes dairy and eggs, which have their own environmental impact. On average, a vegetarian diet produces 3.8 kilograms of CO₂ per day—much less than a meat-heavy diet but still more than veganism. However, by choosing sustainably sourced dairy and eggs, vegetarians can still make a meaningful difference for the planet.
Flexitarianism-
For many people, strict diets can feel overwhelming. That’s where the flexitarian approach comes in—it’s mostly plant-based but allows for some meat occasionally. This way of eating is becoming popular because it’s both practical and sustainable. Research shows that even cutting meat consumption in half could reduce farming-related emissions by nearly 30%. If widely adopted, flexitarianism could lower food-related emissions by up to 52% by 2050. It strikes a balance between what’s good for the planet and what’s realistic for individuals.
Think about the “Meatless Monday” movement, which encourages people to skip meat one day a week. It’s a simple, actionable way to reduce meat consumption and raise awareness about sustainable eating.
Pescetarianism-
Pescetarians avoid meat from land animals but still eat fish and seafood. While this reduces the environmental impact of livestock farming, it comes with other challenges, like overfishing, damage to ocean habitats, and declining marine life. Large-scale fishing methods, such as bottom trawling, harm ecosystems, and even fish farming can contribute to pollution. For pescetarianism to be truly sustainable, it’s important to choose responsibly sourced seafood and explore plant-based alternatives.
Consider the concept of “regenerative ocean farming,” which focuses on growing seaweed and shellfish in a way that restores ecosystems. This approach offers a more sustainable way to obtain seafood.
But sustainability isn’t just about what we eat—it’s about how our food is produced, sourced, and wasted. Locally grown, seasonal produce has a far lower carbon footprint than out-of-season avocados shipped across the globe. A staggering one-third of all food ends up being wasted—not only is this unethical, but it’s also a major environmental problem. In fact, reducing food waste would cut emissions more than getting rid of all cars on the planet. Sustainable farming practices like crop rotation, composting, and increasing biodiversity can help heal the environment. Supporting these methods is just as important as eating more plant-based foods.
Individual choices matter, but systemic transformation is non-negotiable. To build a truly sustainable food system, we must reform agricultural subsidies to favor plant-based and sustainable farming over industrial meat production. We should also push for policy changes that incentivize sustainable diets through taxation on high-emission foods or incentives for plant-based consumption. It is also necessary to address food insecurity by ensuring equitable access to nutritious, sustainable food worldwide. A global dietary shift—even a partial one—could free up land, slow deforestation, and preserve biodiversity in ways individual actions alone cannot achieve.
In The Vegetarian, Yeong-hye’s transformation is unsettling because it forces those around her to confront their own consumption. Her refusal to eat meat is not merely a personal choice but a disruption—a challenge to societal norms. In the real world, dietary change feels just as radical. We live in a world that glorifies abundance, yet that abundance is choking the planet.
So, is there one perfect diet for the planet? Perhaps not. But there is a clear directive: eat less meat, eat more plants, waste less food, and demand systemic change. Whether through veganism, vegetarianism, or flexitarianism, the goal is not dietary purity but progress.
Let us move beyond labels and embrace a conscious, compassionate approach to eating. Let us ask ourselves not just what we consume, but what our consumption says about us. For in the end, our choices, like Yeong-hye’s, will define not just our own lives, but the future of our planet. Will we choose to nourish or to destroy?
