Just like the statistic of sweet beverages. Of course that beers that include fish stuff require more or less water.
Of course that wine produced in dry climate requires a lot of water.
Producing a cow, chicken or pig will take a lot of water, probably not much of a difference if animal is located at northern/southern parts or in some shed at equatorial region.
I don't understand what is misleading. Data of water pollution should be of more concern than how much water something needs to thrive.
This data shouldn't influence your decision of what to consume. Data of pollution should.
If you're worried some categories are incorrect then at least you have a lower bound there. Add the water footprint of food that cow or pig eats and then you'll get more accurate. It's no-brainer that raising 60 billion land animals yearly takes a lot of water but it's a silly statistic. The pollution of water that the process creates is more important and a much more relevant statistic.
Well, it's a lot compared to a litre of water ;)
But indeed, a comparison to other beverages would be useful, or even a breakdown ("20% of that is from packaging"). Perhaps it's given by the high sugar content?
