,
6 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Not sure how peer-reviewers were able to evaluate the environmental impact scenarios in the #EATLancet paper, as the manuscript itself is pretty skimpy on quantitative details, as is the supplementary materials. For example, below is what the authors reference for assumed #GHGs 
But, if you check references 4,5,9, and 10 in supplementary appendix, no way those refs are referring to this information.
Maybe main manuscript references? Seems unlikely except for the Tilman & Clark reference.
Look a little deeper at Tilman and Clark & there are no "country-specific" GHG footprints, but are global averages (extended data table 3). But these differ from global averages in #EATLancet (Suppl. Table 7). So, is this the source, but different "serving sizes" used? Who knows
Side note: 357.4 kg of CO2e per kg of serving of beef (1.7 ounces according to #EATLancet) is way, way too high if this was used for USA. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
In summary, refs don't seem to match up, so how is a reviewer supposed to check and make sure things are correct or realistic? 🤷♀️
TLDR, just because a paper is published in high impact journal with impressive sounding authors doesn't mean it can't be shoddy work 💩💩💩#EATLancet
TLDR, just because a paper is published in high impact journal with impressive sounding authors doesn't mean it can't be shoddy work 💩💩💩#EATLancet
