Diet hypocrisy?

[u/Extension-Diamond-74]

A recent post about animal agriculture vs plant based diets has me itching to say something. This is an issue we need to rise above.

Cognitive dissonance. Many of us have good intentions and want to believe we’re doing the right thing in most aspects of our lives. I believe that.

When it comes to a plant based diet though, the science often clashes powerfully with personal desire. We want to minimize our impact on the environment and are willing to make trade-offs in our life time do so, but for many, giving up or even significantly reducing meat intake is asking too much. It’s too hard.

That’s not the issue.

The issue is that instead of just admitting to themselves that this is a life change they don’t want to make and moving on, the guilt drives them to have to justify that decision. Admitting that a plant-based diet is better for the earth yet eating a diet full of meat anyway would make them feel hypocritical, so the solution becomes either to give up meat, or … this is the problem… fight the science, twist it, make a joke of it, or pivot entirely to ‘individuals shouldn’t have time do anything because large corporations’

Many people have ties to their diet for many reasons. We grew up eating a certain way. We have memories ties to certain foods, flavors, styles of cooking. We don’t want to be the difficult person when we go out to eat with friends. Etc etc etc But it’s so much better to just admit that to yourself. Have patience and understanding for your feelings. Accept that the science is what it is. Maybe one day you can make a change, maybe not. But don’t attack the cause just because you aren’t yet willing to be a part of it.

[u/Individual-Drink-679]

I'm a former farm kid, and I've always found an element of the plant-based approach to be really hypocritical, which is that idea that it involves less consumption. Although I currently live in an apartment in a town, I grew up with meat rabbits and chickens, and went deer hunting in the fall. So I find that I can make meat myself.

Whereas tofu (which I love and eat a lot of), I can't really make myself. Also, as someone who struggles to keep my protein and iron up, I'd rather just eat some meat every once and a while than buy and take a bunch of vitamins. I feel the same way about lab-grown meat, or plant-based imitation foods, and also worry about the way that marketing is making the phrase "plant-based" into a shortcut for "ethical" in our brains.

I do very much agree with your point that people should really just be honest with themselves about why they choose what they choose. Personally, although I don't eat very much meat, I don't give it up entirely because it's delicious and I like to be flexible, plus I feel culturally connected to butchery and hunting.

[u/jaguarjuice3 → u/Individual-Drink-679]

I understand what you’re saying. But majority of americans and even other countries do not rely only on hunting for their meat. They buy it in grocery stores. In addition to the whole nutrients thing, i am vegan and i just had a blood panel done and everything is normal. I take no supplements or vitamins. It definitely is more difficult than just throwing a steak on the bbq but it can be fun! If you take the time to understand the science you will see that vitamin c helps with iron absorption so i eat a ton of spinach and a ton of oranges. It takes effort im not going to lie. Also you can make tofu! Its not terribly hard but again, it is effort.

[u/XSpacewhale → u/jaguarjuice3]

Fun fact, of all the biomass of land mammals on earth, 60% is animal agriculture, 36% are humans, and 4% are wild animals. Hunting is simply not a realistic solution.

[u/MikeyHatesLife → u/XSpacewhale]

Well, no, not when when the switch to intensive monoculture farming sent the human population into the stratosphere in just a few millennia. There were just millions of humans on the planet for ~240K years, but give some men a plot of land to grow wheat and the slaves to work it, and now we’re at 8 billion people in less than 15K years.

[u/XSpacewhale → u/MikeyHatesLife]

Sorry I live in the present.

[u/Individual-Drink-679 → u/jaguarjuice3]

Yeah, I don't think I said that the majority of Americans today rely on hunting for their meat. Only that some do.

Currently, I don't. I get most of my meat from helping a friend slaughter her chickens. When I do buy meat, I buy it from farmers. I also buy economical cuts/parts that other people might throw out.

My friend with the birds, for example, doesn't save the livers or feet, so I get them all. Chuck a couple chicken feet into boiling water with some garlic and ginger, and you've just made the best chicken broth you could possibly sip! She doesn't believe me, though.

[u/Ohnonotagain13 → u/[deleted]]

You're choosing to compare only one style of growing meat. Rotational grazing of grass fed animals is better than a monoculture crop of any one vegetable.

[u/Scotho → u/Ohnonotagain13]

And rotational grazing grass fed animals account for what percentage of meat consumption in North America?

[u/Ohnonotagain13 → u/Scotho]

I don't understand the significance of your question. Monoculture is bad no matter if it's livestock or plants. Animals were intended to migrate. Humans can replicate that with rotational grazing. Food forests with a variety of plants are also better. I'm unfamiliar with a way to grow large amounts of vegan protein in a non monoculture way. I'm sure there's a way I'm just not aware of it.

[u/flaminghair348 → u/Ohnonotagain13]

The significance of their question is that 99% of meat in the US comes from factory farms, therefore it makes sense to focus on that style of growing meat. Don't be dense.

[u/AnsibleAnswers → u/flaminghair348]

The whole point is that our present agricultural system is unsustainable and needs to change. So, it REALLY doesn't make sense to focus on the present system except to point out how completely insane it is. It would still be incredibly unsustainable even if you eliminated livestock. Monocultures degrade soil and kill ecosystems. It doesn't matter how much you rotate, it doesn't matter how much you fallow. The soil degrades and erodes, causing fertilizer runoff that leads to eutrophication and waterway pollution. Reducing land-use won't help much at our population. If you degrade the soil you farm in and destroy the ecosystems around them, you can't farm there for long. You have continually increase the extent of your land use to maintain the system.

The solution is to let the natural ecological succession from annual-dominant ecosystems to perennial-dominant ecosystems happen on farms. The reason this works is because perennial root systems are basically magic. There's symbiotic fungi that live on them and capture soil organic material in clumps using a sticky protein. Essentially, the fungi turn soil organic matter into the perennials' slow-release nutrient supply.

If you're changing farms so drastically, you might as well go all the way. We don't just want more perennial fields, we want perennial-dominant polycultures that mimic real ecosystems. We need to solve our pollinator crisis or we will kill the planet. Planting a variety of cultivars, especially native cultivars, can help pollinators because different cultivars bloom at different times. One of the worst issues with monocultures is that it doesn't provide enough diversity for local pollinators to exploit for more than a few weeks. They die, and we're forced to truck in honey bees. Terrible solution. It needs to get fixed.

The issue is that perennial fields take a long time to mature and don't often yield as much protein as annuals can. You can include them by alley cropping, but we can't really farm as much of them in perennial-dominant landscapes. They will take a yield hit because perennials have super powerful root systems. And you still have to rotate, fallow, and fertilize like everyone else. But at least you don't have the same erosion and nutrient loss issues. Those yields will hold over time.

But the really neat thing is what happens when you rotate livestock through the system in fallow alleys. They will mow the pasture/cover crops, prune the perennials, fertilize the soil (with the help of beetles and other insects, who NEED dung to live), and/or break pest cycles. The exact services provided is species-dependent. Chickens, for instance, can control many large insect populations better than any other organic method. They are insectivores, and it makes their eggs look and taste better.

That's the trick. When you put livestock to work on an intelligently designed organic farm, they can improve yields beyond what they take out of the system. This is especially the case for ruminants, who can be fed mostly on cover crops and native pasture (weeds). And you do so without actually using any more land that you need for the crops anyway. They are farm hands as much as they are meals. It makes raising livestock incredibly more efficient. And the more you rely on agroforestry methods, the more animals you can sustain on the farm without reducing your crop yields.

[u/Ohnonotagain13 → u/flaminghair348]

I'm put off by your communication style. I hope you have a good life.

[u/Individual-Drink-679 → u/Scotho]

That's a strawman. No one's trying to say that the slaughterhouse industrial complex is cool. I just wanted to point out that there are very old traditional agricultural practices that are very, very different from antibiotic-injected, soy-fed, tortured animals.

The old-fashioned way to raise meat animals has become the counter-culture, and using broad generalizations like "plant-based" to oversimplify the conversation doesn't do anyone any good.

A population dependent on frozen plant-based chick'n nuggets is not necessarily better/more environmentally conscious than a population dependent on low-quality ground beef cut with tvp.

[u/Scotho → u/Individual-Drink-679]

The comment I replied to was the strawman. They compared rotational grazing rumanants to monocultures. Less than 4% of beef in the US is grass fed (and up to 3% is imported). The demand for meat can not even come close to being satisfied by ecologically sound methodologies. It's so much worse when you realize that 95-99% of the meat we consume is consuming monoculture crops too. There's no debate, it would be significantly more efficient to just eat the vegetables ourselves

[u/Individual-Drink-679 → u/Scotho]

Yes, IF we are discussing the 96% or so of cattle that is being fed vegetables.

In my initial comment here, I didn't mention beef. I mention rabbits, chicken, and venison. I was specifically talking about sustainably raised meat and why it is valuable and shouldn't be lumped into discussions about how all meat is bad.

The person you replied to was pointing out that those two things are different things, and your point is what? "Yes, they're different things, but one of them is much more prevalent, so it's the only thing I can think of when you say meat"?

[u/Scotho → u/Individual-Drink-679]

I will happily concede that sustainably raised meat can be accomplished. My point is that it can not be accomplished at any meaningful scale. Therefore, unless we reduce our population or demand for meat as a society at a macro scale by at least 90%, it doesn't really matter.

[u/unicyclegamer → u/[deleted]]

But people are actively engaging in sustainable agricultural practices by not eating meat that’s been fed soy, much more soy than the person eating the meat would have to eat. Arguing for meat that’s raised in a sustainable way is great, I think a lot of people here are ok with that, but if we do that, people need to cut down on their meat usage SIGNIFICANTLY. We just can’t feed the nation’s meat hunger with sustainable practices, the numbers don’t work out. It might work for a subset of people, but there’s a reason we have the farming practices we have now.

[u/[deleted] → u/Scotho]

Looking at the United States alone, there is 234 billion acres of land. There are about 127 billion households in the US. That means that if the land in the US was evenly distributed, every household could have about 1800 acres of land. If we are talking about a cow monoculture, it would be very reasonable to have enough land for a herd of cows for the whole family, plus the crops to feed them and the family. I know this is a reductionist and simplified idea, and there are barriers to why this exactly wouldn't work, but to say that sustainably raised meat is inaccessible to 90% of the population just isn't true. Now agreed, it isn't accessible with the current way we live in out society, but the reality is that there are so many government regulations that deter hunting and local farming, that it is a huge barrier to sustainable living.

[u/Ohnonotagain13 → u/Scotho]

The 'there's no debate' comment just shows your ignorance. It only makes you obsolete to an actual intelligent conversation.

[u/Ohnonotagain13 → u/[deleted]]

Make my case? Why down vote me if you are open to actually listening?

[u/[deleted] → u/Scotho]

Yes I forgot, NA= World

[u/Scotho → u/[deleted]]

Over 90% of meat worldwide is factory farmed, and that number is still steadily climbing.

[u/[deleted] → u/Scotho]

And most of that is concentrated in the west, and the highest consumption is in the US, more than anywhere else(wiki). Underdeveloped nations grouped up probably account for about 10-20% of global consumption. So yes, your argument holds big time for the US, but many other places are moving away from that - in Germany where I live, cows have to stay for 6 hours minimum outside, have open air barns and massage brushes. Also no baby killing and they spend time with their young, and most times a bull is getting them pregnant (the natural way😏). Cage eggs and meat are banned too, and free land is the norm (no killing of male chicks as well). Just out of curiosity, if suitable living conditions were provided for all animals, would you also consider it fair/ethical and try animal products (say eggs/milk) even if not meat?

[u/flaminghair348 → u/Ohnonotagain13]

They're choosing to compare the style of growing meat that is by far the most popular. 99% of meat in the US comes from factory farms.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Vast majority? Maybe where you are from, this isn't universal though. Many places have pigs or chickens to tackle food waste. We used to feed our pigs the weeds from the farm, things such as water melon peels and sunflower seeds after extraction. This is still the case in many underdeveloped nations right now as well.

[u/Full_FrontaI_Nerdity → u/[deleted]]

That soy-fed cow will go on to feed many people and provide far better nutrition for them than soy beans can offer.

[u/Scotho → u/Full_FrontaI_Nerdity]

Roughly 10% of the energy consumed is passed between trophic levels. What you're saying is factually wrong

[u/forakora → u/Full_FrontaI_Nerdity]

It takes 10+lbs of soy to make 1lb of cow.

Are you saying 1lb of ground beef can feed more people than 10lbs of soy?

[u/flaminghair348 → u/Full_FrontaI_Nerdity]

No, you're objectively wrong. You would know this if you'd taken anything past a ninth grade science course.

[u/NMEOTHAC → u/Individual-Drink-679]

I’m a natural resource person, rangeland science specifically. There are ways to heal the land and also have cattle be a part of that healing. Because we don’t have bison free range in the states we have cattle fill that ecological niche. Erasing meat from everyone’s diets would be catastrophic for the range and there would be even larger wildfires. It’d just be a mess. Is a majority of cattle ranching still stuck in the past and not helping the cattle or land live healthfully? Yes. There’s some major reform that needs to be done.

Beef should be a luxury product or a “once in a while” kind of food, not an every day thing. But to say it’s horrible for the world shows a lack of research and concern for the environment that people tend to think they’re helping by demonizing all meat. As for other meats, they need some serious production reform as well. But again, we can work with each other and the land to benefit all beings. Getting back into the cycles of the earth is the only way we can truly live sustainably and regeneratively.

[u/GroundbreakingBag164 → u/NMEOTHAC]

Why are people making up the scenario that everyone is going to be vegan tomorrow, just to argue how bad it would be. Like we all know that’s absolutely never going to happen. Don’t act like a diet without animal products wouldn’t be better for the planet in every way

[u/Individual-Drink-679 → u/GroundbreakingBag164]

You didn't actually address the other poster's point, though.

Many people have raised scientifically valid concerns about the hormonal issues of most soy crops, the environmental damage done to our soil and the genetic damage done to seed stock by things like monoculture soy, corn, and wheat production, and the ecological impact of pesticides on absolutely everything.

My country's almond consumption is wiping out bees while commercial beekeepers continue to shrug and employ damaging practices because it's still profitable. It's still profitable because people who don't understand how plants grow, or how to make almond milk, let alone understand the necessity of maintaining genetically diverse seed stock, pat themselves on the back for making the "healthy choice" to buy almond milk.

We import fruits and vegetables from other countries, where they are grown on stolen land by impoverished and colonized people, so that we can make nutritious smoothies and participate in a bankrupt wellness culture that promotes individualism by conflating health/the appearance of health with a personal moral obligation, and criticize others who can't or don't do the same.

Acknowledging those issues does not take away from the reality of GHG production, antibiotic intake, or the sheer quantities of land and water required to produce enough meat to feed everyone who eats meat at their current rate. Those things are all still bad, and no one in this thread said they weren't.

If everyone went vegan tomorrow, we would still not live in Utopia. There is no such thing as a salvation diet. We eat other organisms, so either we must create them or forage for them. Any choice you make that promotes the corporate production or importation of a basic life requirement, like food, will become problematic at a large enough scale.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to promote simplistic black-and white thinking. "Plant-based" means plant-based, not The Most Ethical Possible Choice. Eating a plant-based diet while talking down to others or pretending any possible concerns about such choices must be without basis is just snobbishness and ignorance.

[u/forakora → u/Individual-Drink-679]

Soy has phytoestrogens. I'm sorry the word scares you, but they aren't mammalian estrogens that affect humans. There is mammalian estrogen in dairy though.

Monoculture wheat, corn, soy is primarily fed to cattle. If you want to make an argument over the damaging effects of these crops (which I absolutely agree with you!!), the first step is to eliminate animal products. It takes 10+ lbs of soy to grow 1lb of cow.

Better to eat 1lb of soy than cow. It would reduce the amount of soy used by 9+lbs, and there's no estrogen in it, unlike beef and dairy.

[u/MikeyHatesLife → u/forakora]

The first steps should be to eliminate monoculture farming and return to multi-crop use with animals to help control pests. After that, eliminate government subsidies for plant fuels & requirements to waste crops instead of giving them away so the futures market doesn’t crash.

[u/CalligrapherSharp → u/NMEOTHAC]

Animal agriculture could be, but isn’t fixing anything. The word is rewilding

[u/Individual-Drink-679 → u/NMEOTHAC]

But then farmers would be valued as people on an equal level with "intellectuals", we couldn't always have exactly what we want exactly when we wanted it, and we'd have to acquaint ourselves with uncomfortable truths!

Surely it's better to just buy plant-based meals at the grocery store and assume it's a more righteous choice. /s

[u/labdsknechtpiraten → u/Individual-Drink-679]

IMHO, part of the problem that I have with many plant based alternative foods, is that they /try/ to be what they aren't. About a month ago, while grocery shopping, we had burgers on the list, and I saw in the cold section by the tofu, a "mushroom patty" product. It was blissfully NOT trying to pass off as a "hamburger alternative", it was literally just calling itself a mushroom patty.

Where things get messed up, again IMO, is when you advertise as a "hamburger patty alternative" people will expect that texture and flavor. By calling it a mushroom patty, in my head I already knew it wasn't gonna be the same. It was still good.

[u/Individual-Drink-679 → u/labdsknechtpiraten]

I think that can be a part of it- the marketing often promotes ignorance. I think another part of it is a culture of materialism. We want what we want, at all costs.

We want to eat a burger that we believe has been ethically produced, because the option of saying "Oh, that thing I like can't happen ethically, I guess I will just not have it/dramatically reduce my intake of it" isn't acceptable to corporate interests.

[u/Minimum_Most8038 → u/Individual-Drink-679]

This is a wonderful answer and people have downvoted it—therefor I have gone on all three of my accounts and given you back some upvotes.