• TheFonz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It’s not working and they have cause for concern. Mean consumption is on a downward trend

    Edit: I meant to say in the United States it’s slowing down.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I love eating beef and whatnot, but my body seems to respond better to eating less of that in a given sitting. As someone growing up in the 80s, it seemed like that diet should be a 50/50 mix of beef and spinach…

        I think they are going to have a hard time convincing people to feel crummier… it’s much healthier and cheaper to stick to that old “pack of playing card portion”

    • capital@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s true. Here’s some US data I found with one quick search.

      To add to that, as underdeveloped areas become more modern and income levels increase, it tends to follow that meat consumption increases along with it.

      I would be very happy to be proven wrong on this.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I imagine costs would be the main thing driving down consumption if anything. Until we subsidize alternatives like we do meat, and the prices of meat alternatives are cheaper, people will have incentives to eat real meat.

        It would cost us less to subsidize them long term, and it would lower costs of meat… And help the environment. Wins all around, yet people will vote blindly against it.

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sorry, I meant to say it’s slowing down, not trending down as I wrote originally. Most stats show this trend.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It also explains why Big Dairy was trying to make almond milk be labeled “nut juice” and protect the term “milk”.

      I really do think the SAD will be one of the last things to fall in our path toward progression - and that’s assuming we steadily progress. Seeing donnie and his supporters doesn’t exactly lead me to believe that about ~30% of this country wants any progress. The reactionaries have been doing nearly all they can to deride, mock and hold back any and all forms of reduction of our ridiculous levels of consumption of dairy and dead flesh for years and years. I even still run into some of them that think being a (male) vegetarian will turn you into a woman or something, because “protein”, LOL.

      There is a lot of propaganda to overcome on the path to getting Americans to eat a properly healthy diet AND to curb the massive global warming from their current diet already - and dumb fad diets like eating all-steak like Peterson or the “paleo” diet are not helping at all.

  • wsheldon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    They’re the only one of these groups that’s selling something. That probably helps.

  • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Why does meat need lobbying? Most people already consider it essential and like the taste.

    It’s like lobbying for sugar…

    Wait a minute…

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    When it comes to progress, the SAD will be one of the last things to fall, IMHO.

    Even swapping out the same thing by creating clean meat has the anti-woke warriors all aflame and clutching their pearls about how they’ll all turn into “soy boys” if they aren’t killing something in order to “get their protein”…imagine going full plant-based, my word.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    They don’t need to spend money to convince people that meat is delicious - I wonder what all that money goes to.

      • SuperCub@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        We need to greatly reduce meat consumption in order to make our planet sustainable for human life. You can start at your own pace, but it’s easier than ever with all of the meat alternatives these days.

      • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It is the largest positive impact a single person can have on the environment. Kurzgesagt video with the analysis.

        As a vegetarian for decades, it’s also cheaper, often healthier, and isn’t difficult at all once you find some new recipes you like. You also don’t need to switch all at once. Ease into it by cooking one vegetarian meal a week and then increase it as you find ones you like.

        • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Infinitely incorrect. Not reproducing is the greatest lack of a negative impact a single person can have on the environment (which is all going vegan can do, not eating meat will never have greater than a zero net impact on emissions).

          • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Not having children can also at best have a net zero impact. If we’re taking opportunity costs for future actions into account, the single highest reduction in emissions for an individual is to die.

            In day to day life, veganism has the single highest impact. Still, I’ll never have (non -adopted) children, emissions are a part of it, but mostly because I don’t want to bring someone into the world that’s so thoroughly fucked at the moment

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              In day to day life, veganism has the single highest impact

              I don’t know how this can be quantified, but id love to see how you try.

        • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Vegan ≠ Vegetarian.

          Veganism starts and ends with “no animal exploitation”. And due to some weird ingroup/outgroup dynamics Extremely Online Vegans will get batshit insane radical with it and refuse to feed meat to their cats or insist that eating honey is fundamentally unethical.

          I eat very little meat, mostly for environmental and partly for ethical reasons, but bringing up the environmentalist side of vegetarianism to defend veganism (a radical dogma based on a specific ethical stance) is missing the mark entirely.

          With all that said, everyone should eat less meat, and way less red meat.

          • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I do agree the zeal of the recently converted veg*ns are not very helpful in messaging. Wagging your finger at people as individuals for a lifestyle and notions about nutrition (“but where do you get your protein from”) they were likely born into/just accepted as a truth is not too helpful. Yelling at people for a dab of honey or egg or butter in something served to them…not really helping. Who has ever had their mind changed by such behaviors? If anything, this will make people double down in their delusions about how the SAD is good for them.

            Yes, most animal proteins are probably setting you up for diabetes, cancer, heart disease. And it’s not really hard to discern this from looking at the evidence. Honest actors in the medical profession are already saying this, if they aren’t compromised by the SAD industry complex. They are, IMHO, not saying it nearly enough. Far too many people still think they need “protein” (in their minds, meaning dead flesh which also happens to have lots and lots of fat, too, but they don’t call this “a fat”, they call it “a protein”, lol) to live.

            In my opinion, if you compare the crazy levels of animal protein consumption in America with the arc of Big Tobacco and the levels of denialism also associated with it, we are maybe in the 1980s phase - when everyone but the most reactionary knew that using tobacco AND secondary smoke were life-threatening, but just before much was being done about it - the bans on indoor smoking only started in the late 1980s.

            Many people are starting to wake up from the Big Tobacco-esque levels of carnist propaganda…we’ll see what action is going to be taken by governments, institutions, etc…

            • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              We’re like 1960s tobacco industry at best. I don’t see the subsidies on red meat going away in the next 10 years, and probably not the next 20 if I’m honest, short of a catastrophic food crisis that would cause us to re-evaluate the number of human calories produced per hectare of agricultural land.

              I’d like to be wrong, and change does come in waves so maybe 10 years from now I’ll change my mind. Maybe. But right now the idea of not subsidizing red meat production is fringe even within the left of the left – and the left hasn’t exactly been making electoral strides in most countries recently.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not watching your YouTube video. if you can’t articulate a compelling reason, just say so.

          I find it hard to believe that it is the biggest impact a single person can have. can you enumerate the other strategies it is weighed against?

          you also aren’t supporting your claims about affordability, health, nor ease with anything but anecdotal evidence.

          • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’m not watching your YouTube video. if you can’t articulate a compelling reason, just say so.

            What absolutely trash reasoning. “Please type up a compelling reason just for me, I don’t want to watch a well researched and produced discussion on the topic.” It’s bordering on sealioning.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              I did watch that video. probably a dozen times. it gets posted often. I shouldn’t be expected to debunk an argument that isn’t made.

              I rewatched* it after I made my comment though, and it does not establish what they claimed. it doesn’t cite sources**, and it’s primary thesis is “it’s complicated”

              edit(s):

              * i actually listened to it. but just now, after i made this comment, i scrubbed it and i found:

              ** they do some pretty hard-to-see and also hard-to-research citation in the form of citing academic papers in the bottom right of the screen around the time they are making the claim. and let me tell you, poore-nemecek is the basis of the lca analysis (which i could have guessed), and that lca analysis is flat out bad science. it’s certainly not a compelling reason to be vegan.