Thank you Bearded, it would be nice if the vegan society had properly referenced it. It however looks much like the EAT study that was published a year or so back as interesting idealized guidelines, but lacking when dug into. I mean "1 egg calorie requires 6 plant calories" which...I don't really need to explain why that's wording is off, right?
The list of things they've chosen not to include in their analysis is pretty much everything that would make it work practically. It's preliminary research findings. I hope they get the funding to go further, it looks like it could be interesting if they can broaden their analysis to be more practical, but I wouldn't use it to show that the UK can go self-sufficiently vegan and carbon neutral through reforestry and shifting agriculture. It doesn't really give enough evidence for that claim.
Exposing these bad practices is the first step towards asking questions about how things can change, surely?
Not really. It's like people who go on and on that they need to do X or stop doing Y, that doesn't make them more likely to take the next step, in fact going on about it may make them feel they've done enough. Awareness of problems does nothing to incentivise people to do better.
Knowing a few farms are horrible doesn't change much, probably no more than knowing that some countries that fly produce and other foods into the UK have a significant child and other enslaved labour issue. What does that information do exactly? Without other resources and tools to do differently, all it does is make people defensive and/or guilty. And no, not everyone will or even can go vegan well so that's not a solution - one only has to look at the recommendations for those with chronic low appetite to see the issues.