Study: 100% of meat and dairy companies have lobbied against environmental and climate policies
medium.com
All 10 of the largest U.S. meat and dairy companies have lobbied against environmental and climate policies, resisting climate regulations, including rules on greenhouse gases and emissions reporting. This is according to a study by New York University, which examined the political influence of the 10 largest meat and dairy companies in the United States.
100% of the top 10 meat and dairy companies.
That should be in the title—otherwise it implies that every family dairy in the country has its own team of lobbyists.
Closer to the truth though. Most are part of organizations that include lobbyists that would oppose anything that negatively impacts the industry. I don't find that particularly nefarious of course.
It’s not that the title isn’t still mostly true—it’s that the impossible statement discredits the rest of the article.
Precisely this, if you've got a point to make, don't sensationalise the headline, it only makes it easy for people to discredit and ignore without even reading the article.
...and that the rest of the article has virtually nothing to do with the environment or lobbying.
The title is misleading, however the top companies take up such a huge market share that it might as well be a true statement. I know there are companies trying to make some difference and I hate media sensationalism
It is a sensationalist title, sigh
Context.
And it would imply companies that make lab-grown meat and animal products, which are often companies formed explicitly in support of environmental sustainability goals, also.
IDK why corporate lobbing is still legal, wtf outlaw it asap
It's legal because the people who benefit from corporate lobbying are the same people who determine what is legal.
Yup! And it's exactly why the system will never change on its own. The people in power will never voluntarily give up that power. Why does Congress get to vote on its own salary?!
Ah, what you are missing is that the people who make those laws are the same ones being lobbied, and lobbying means giving money to them.
It exists because it's ridiculous to expect government to know about every industry's ins and outs. Sometimes we benefit from lobbying as because some old law is affecting new processes or we need to support funding for something that we didn't know about.
The issue is when shit is mundane and worthless like the topic op presented. Lobbying against climate policies just means you're part of the problem. We understand enough to know the policies need to exist and it's a waste of everyone's time and money for these giant corps to lobby against them.
Furthermore, for a lot of issues, there are a select few people who have a big enough incentive to vote solely on one issue, and the rest of people don't care because the harm is does to them is relatively diffuse.
I don't care about corporate lobbying because I think its useful. Lobbying is useful because its just keeping your issues to people who can do something about it.
What I don't get is why regular people don't organize and create their own lobby. I know wealthy individuals who do it to change things they don't like.
They don't stand in streets and burn energy screaming right before they get their heads caved in by police. You know what's better, paying $5 into a pool and hiring a firm to develop research and a report that you can give to a lawyer who can start to bring it to representatives.
There's a reason you never see wallstreet bankers or tobacco executives in the streets. Its not how anything gets done
You're all down voting but you know lobbying is for anyone right. Check out the link below to see an example. Would you want to remove groups like this from bringing their cause forward. Lobbying itself isn't bad. What is bad is that more people aren't using it which leaves only the corrupt ones
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/05/abortion-rights-up-lobbying-with-roe-threatened/
Actually, lobbying is hurtful because it puts a goddamn pricetag on getting anything done. What happens when I have a million fucking dollars and you don't, but your need is far greater? Go fuck yourself until you get more scrilla!
SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL YOU HAVE THE MONEY -- that is what you're supporting right now.
Oh boy, you sure are clueless, which is pretty lame since you're pushing some bullshit opinions here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
Who can create a PAC?
here ya go bud: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/registering-pac/
you fucking moron. The reason you never see them in the streets is because they're the ones who built the goddamn system to favor THEMSELVES. That's why they DO join us on the streets, just above us -- to laugh at us pawns who are fucked from the start.
Lastly, you're 100% wrong about the streets not solving a goddamn thing.
Huh, well imagine that. The biggest sources of the problem is against doing anything about it.
What I find pretty wild is that our government even helps them do more of it by boosting terrible diet choices, including pushing it onto children.
It's all about profit. If some new discovery magically made dairy climate friendly but also increased profits by 12%, every producer would be on board tomorrow. They don't give a fuck about climate one way or the other, just profit. It's just that one position allows them to keep making their profits without having to make any changes. No points for guessing which position it is.
https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/cait-global-emissions-sector.png
https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/agricultural-greenhouse-gas-emissions-101/
https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/15/it-may-be-uncomfortable-we-need-talk-about-it-animal-agriculture-industry-and-zero-waste
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-much-do-crops-contribute-emissions
agriculture is only about 20% of global emissions, but I would be fine with it being 100%: we need to eat.
Except it's mostly animal agriculture that's destroying the planet. Animals are not at all efficient in converting crops to meat, dairy and eggs. It can take up to 16 kilograms of plants to create 1 kilogram of certain animal products. 77% of agricultural land is used to farm animals, despite it providing just 18% of the world's caloric intake. Researchers at the University of Oxford have found that if everyone went vegan, global farmland use could be reduced by 75%, the size of the US, China, Australia and the EU combined. Just imagine how much land could be rewilded.
And no, you absolutely don't need animal products in your diet to be healthy and thrive.
there is no reason to believe lands would be rewilded, even if they "could" be
If you could free up a land mass the size of the US, China, Australia and the EU combined, don't you think we could plants some trees?
just because we could doesn't mean we would. why wouldn't we turn it into shopping malls?
Have you stopped and wondered how big a land mass the size of the US, China, Australia and the EU combined is? I am not sure how many shopping malls you have in mind.
i don't see why you think we would rewild the land instead of making money on it.
that's a lie.
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#explore-data-on-the-environmental-impacts-of-food
what i said was true and your link doesn't contradict that.
I meant it in the context of agriculture. Out of the 20% global emissions caused by agriculture, most of it is caused by animal agriculture. I believe the stat is 18%.
do you have a plan to eliminate animal agriculture?
We should definitely update the perverse incentive structure we have right now.
this seems more like a platitude than a plan
2018 poore-nemecek doesn't say you should go vegan. it says the industry needs to change and make less animal products.
Ok, you wait for the industry to change, while making the planet and its inhabitants die in the mean time. Take no responsibility and complain about large corporations fucking up the planet, while simultaneously funding them.
you can't shift the blame onto me. i know whos fucking up the planet.
Nice projection. I am not shifting blame, but since you've said this it shows you're obviously dealing with some massive cognitive dissonance. I have only been providing facts and sources dude. Animal agriculture is a massive source of problems for the planet. Besides all the things I have already told you: what do you think the leading causes of mass extincition, deforestation and global ocean and freshwater eutrophication are? Right...
that's a lie. the comment to which i was responding was pure rhetoric.
wrong.
industry.
you don't know what i or anyone else needs, so kindly stop patronizing.
It's not patronising. It is just stating a fact.
https://www.andeal.org/vault/2440/web/JADA_VEG.pdf
people need more than nutrients.
Like what? What do people need that they can't get from a vegan diet?
some people might be able to meet all their needs with a vegan diet. i would bet most people cannot.
the american dietetic association no longer exists. it's now the academy of nutrition and dietetics. this is no longer their position.
I know they've changed their name, but they've not changed their position.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/
that position expired 2 years ago.
livestock mostly graze on plants we can't eat or are fed parts of plants that we can't or won't eat.
Globally livestock consume about 6 billion tonnes of feed annually – including one third of global cereal production – of which 86% is made of materials that are currently not eaten by humans. Producing 1 kg of boneless meat still requires an average of 2.8 kg human-edible feed.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
and most of this 86% could be converted to other uses, including human-edible feed.
what i said was true. what you said doesn't change that.
Yes it is true, but it still is a moot point because "producing 1 kg of boneless meat still requires an average of 2.8 kg human-edible feed."
it's not moot. it's absolutely true.
I already told you it is true, but it means nothing. Animal agriculture is still an incredibly big part of the problem fucking up the planet right now. I think I have supplied you with enough data for that by now. Maybe read it?
it's cute that you think i dont read OWID
since all of agriculture is only about 20% of our emissions, and we need to eat, i disagree with your analysis.
You can disagree all you want, but climate scientists say it is so:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/201603-plant-based-diets/
Perhaps you might want to start citing sources?
neither of those studies support the thesis that it's "mostly animal agriculture that's destroying the planet"
why would i? cutting up yours is plenty of fun.
the study published july this year doesn't say what the fluff piece says it does. it says production of different products has different emmissions, and those consumed by vegans are lower. it doesn't say being vegan reduces the more harmful production levels.
so?
So it's inefficient like hell and causing a shit ton of greenhouse gasses. Have a look at the impact of some of these foods: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#explore-data-on-the-environmental-impacts-of-food
agriculture is only about 20% of our emissions and we need to eat. i'd be fine if it were 100%.
You'd be fine with it being 100% even if it only needs to be 3% or 4% instead of 20%? Nice.
if we eliminate every other sector's emissions, then agriculture would necessarily grow as a proportion, even if the absolute emissions stayed the same.
Wtf is with quality on lemmy world these days. How is a medium article written like an ethics 101 student using ai assistance news worthy. It's formula 1 sentence summary linked to an article source, with one sentence over generalized conclusion... Over and over and over.
Easy content to make. That simple.
Holy misleading headline, Batman!
I'm not saying that there isn't a problem with the industries, but the 10 largest in one country is NOT "100% of all meat and dairy companies" or anywhere near that!
A sample size of the 10 largest in a country where it's literally impossible to get to the top 10 anything company without truly despicable practices is some supercharged selection bias!
The 4 largest companies control 70% of the market. Markets tend to be one to three companies taking the lions share and then a long tail.
The top 10 will easily round up to 100%.
I'd also be hard pressed to find a meat producer that actually supported climate initiatives and wasn't some super small farmer.
https://www.reuters.com/business/how-four-big-companies-control-us-beef-industry-2021-06-17/
They couldn't be top 10 if they supported those initiatives. It's selection bias. Only the ones who couldn't possibly support those policies and still be in their position are counted. It's pretty misleading, even if it's a large portion. Besides, it's the 10 largest US companies. There's a bunch not in the US, obviously the US doesn't make up 100% of the industry. It's just the place that's most concerned with profit over anything else, it seems.
Wow nothing gets past you.
That's some real special math you have there, willfully ignoring probably millions of people as irrelevant and probably just as bad as some of the worst in the world 🤦
But I thought you just said that such a thing doesn't exist! 70% being 100% and all..
Besides, you know that sustainable farming co-ops exist and many of those deal in meat and dairy, right?
Some of them are quite large, in spite of your insistence on eliminating them to defend a headline that reads as something a crazed PeTA activist would shout at people 🙄
Can you read? He said 4 companies make up about 70%, he didn't say 4 companies make up 100%... he said 10 companies would round up to 100%. You are illiterate
It was super early and I hadn't had my coffee yet, so I missed that detail. My overall point still stands.
Ok sorry for calling you illiterate, but yeah I do agree the title shouldn't just be a blatant lie (even if it's close to the truth in terms of market share)
That's some incredibly misleading editing of my comment which is already above so why bother. It's just weird. I do hope you get better.
More important, as long as people keep looping all the small farms with "big ag", especially in the US, there will never be a reasoned discourse.
We all hate big ag. More agricultural subsidies than people realize are paid by small farms (not individuals) and received by big ones.
I got some hippy-ass, "one bad day," native grass open pasture, keep the calves with their moms until they wean naturally, one cow per acre, priced to reflect the true cost of meat cattle ranches where I live. I don't think they were part of this survey.
And as such, the headline is wrong 🤷
Same. My farmer, Justin, also makes sure the animals don't travel far to the abattoir. That said, I feel like (though hope I'm wrong) our farmers do not make up a significant part of the industry. I wouldn't even consider our guys part of the same "industry" that the big shops are part of
It's pretty niche. The place I go started a program to help breed pigs back down to a reasonable size. Apparently they have painful problems from being over bred, like hip dysplasia. They are networking with other small farms to breed their pigs progressively smaller and healthier.
But yeah, not really putting a dent in the factory farming problem and not accessible to most.
Very dishonest click bait. Moderators should clean this stuff up in order to prevent redditification.
Not sure how it is clickbait - it's just the headline is overstating the case by claiming 100%, when it should say 100% of the 10 largest companies - which are responsible for how much of the nation's market of meat and dairy? If it's like just about every other market, a few top players grab up most the market share and set the overall agenda.
Are they top 10 of dairy, meat, or both? What share of the market do they hold in each respective field, and combined fields? It's pretty arbitrary for claiming 100% of. Would you consider the same concept acceptable elsewhere with different subject like..
100% of Rappers and Democrats voted for Kanye in 2020. Top 10 selling rappers and Democrats on Spotify voted for Kanye.
Obviously I made that up... but I think you'd consider it dishonest clickbait.
I did look around earlier and saw that the top 4 companies controlled more than 50% of the market...add in the other six, and that is only going to increase.
https://www.iatp.org/companies-dominating-market-farm-display-case
I agree, which is why we should have a problem with articles that pretend the rest of farmers are the same as them. It just helps them because nobody is left to side with small farms.
I mean, how about this. Did you know that many of the meat and dairy subsidies that people get up-in-arms about are paid as meat- or dairy-specific taxes by farmers, and only the bigger farms reap the benefit?
Those big farms profit from the fact that they and vegans have a common enemy... small meat/dairy farms.
How do you think that translates to Meat and Dairy market? I'd imagine adding more market, that 50% is going to shrink. Definitely makes that 100% in the title seem a lot click baitier
They are 100% of the 10 companies this investigation started with.
Not only is the headline dishonest, but the article tries to maintain the dishonest attitude of the headline. And then, the article doesn't really talk about environment lobbying at all, it talks about why the author thinks people should be vegans.
100% somehow equals 5%
Large-scale family farms and industrial nonfamily farms account for only 5% of farms, but 63.8% of production (in $). Small-scale family farms represent 89% of U.S. farms, but only 17.8% of production.4
So fight to fix that instead of helping Tyson throw small family farms into the meat grinder.
Nah I'd rather fight to end animal exploitation than help smaller exploiters not get gobbled up by the bigger exploiters.
That's all I was looking for. An admission that this isn't about the environment or about truth, and that you are 100% onboard with lying to get what you want.
You're far more honest than most militant vegans I meet.
Sorry, where did I say any of that? I responded to someone making a sarcastic comment about the study only covering 5% of farms and it reminded me of a relevant statistic, so I shared.
Then you made a comment about how we should fight to fix farming so that smaller farms still have a chance, to which I replied that I don't care about helping to save any farms that exploit animals.
Where, in any of that did I say that I do not care about the truth or that the environment isn't a part of the reason I think that's immoral to eat animals?
Well, for one I'm not a militant vegan, I'm just a fuckin vegan person. For two, I don't believe you meet that many militant vegans unless you're intentionally seeking out interactions with vegans, in which case the fact that you characterize them as militant says less to me about them and more about how you probably made comments similar to the very antagonistic, mischaracterizing, lying comment you just made, attempting to misconstrue arguments because you have some sort of agenda against people who just wanna see less suffering in the world.
But hey, I know that for people like you, you just need reasons to hate vegans, so if pretending that I don't care about truth or the environment helps you paint vegans as annoying bad people in your mind instead of actually considering the moral/ethical implications of your food, I'm happy to help.
After you acknowledged that big farms are in the process of regulatory capture in a way that's causing phenomenal harm, you admitted that you don't care about people maliciously grouping them with smalltime meat and dairy farmers because "Nah I’d rather fight to end animal exploitation than help smaller exploiters ". Your fucking words. You just called a lot of my best friends "exploiter" because you don't like that they farms chickens to pay their bills. If you give a fuck about animals, stop spitting in people's faces. It might surprise you, but we're animals, too.
It doesn't matter to you if small farmers are pro-environment or not. It works for you to put them in the same bucket as a completely unrelated class because you get to try to flush them all down at once for your own personal ethical reasons. And the ethics of everyone else? Well we are subhuman to you.
Honestly, the only exploiters I know are big ag, and militant vegans. So yes, for "people like me" (as you've now categorized me with big evil businesses to), I do hate a certain category. But I don't "hate vegans". I won't make the bad-faith move you just did. I don't hate vegans. I hate when people try to hurt other people, lie and cheat, because they place non-vegans below the animals they fight to protect.
I got news for you
Always handy when a pop-sci article discredits itself without having to read it.
100% is 10 out of all the 10 companies they investigated.
Part of the investigation were all Meat and dairy companies which had lobbied against environmental protection bills in the past
So those who had lobbied continued to lobby? Shocking...
The article tries to make it sound like all meat and dairy companies are guilty, and then goes on to make claims about health risks of eating meat and claims about animal rights.
It's not a meaningful argument about the environment, it's propaganda.
I also wonder how many of them also lobbied in favor of similar policies. It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s also 100% of them.
Oh no! Who could've known this? What's next? Oil companies lobbying against environmental and climate policies?
Don't worry, the headline is demonstrably false.
Well it appears to be the top 10 companies, so it is almost certainly quite close to 100%. Still not 100% though so it's wrong of course, there's no point saying something incorrect even if it's pretty close to the truth.
Not really. Small farmers generally couldn't care less about lobbying, and represent over 90% of the meat and dairy farms in the US. Literally, they cherry-picked Big Ag and the clickbait headline extrapolated conclusions about a completely different demographic.
The headline is clickbait. They are phrasing it as 100% because they mean all 10 of the companies they investigated lobbied against climate change.
As I replied elsewhere, I'd rather use the word "propaganda". The article isn't about the environment at all. It's about throwing a bunch of reasons at the reader to become vegan. And clickbait headlines always put the full story in the body, but it continues to leave out the fact that 90% of the meat and dairy industry (the non-big-ag) isn't represented in their 100% figure.
I know a lot of people are new here but this kind of shit should be moderated better... Link to the study, not someone's blog
Agreed, this is a blog post from 3 days ago but all of the sources they link in the footer are from early 2021... nothing new here and this article is a biased mess.
That said, there's nothing surprising here anyway, lobbying in the US is just bribery and corruption by another term and obviously these companies are going to do anything they can to defend their profits
I’m pretty sure this headline is impossible
Also, medium is a blog.
Came here to say this. I have a friend that's a meat and dairy company, and she (yup, 1 person for-profit farm) doesn't lobby for or against shit.
That gets us under 100% already.
From reading the sub heading out looks like they mean 100% of the top ten largest
They just wanted the click bait headline
Personally, I think the moment they decided to use that picture of a cow with the headline it stopped being clickbait and started being propaganda.
And there are two reasons I know this, and can back it up.
In summary, it's anti-meat smut that leans on the usual 3-legged gishgallop, staying quick and shallow enough on all 3 topics to not draw an objection from readers on any of them.
Added to the filter! See yha never medium!
Medium is a blog, however in this case the article cites the sources they used and is well argued.
If someone wants to make the argument that their sources don't say what they argue they're saying, I'm open to removing it, but it will be because the content is wrong, not because of who is hosting the content. :)
Sources cited:
Citations:
[1] https://www.pcrm.org/news/blog/us-meat-and-dairy-companies-spend-millions-lobbying-against-climate-legislation
[2] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22379909/big-meat-companies-spend-millions-lobbying-climate u [3] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02042021/meat-dairy-lobby-climate-action/
[4] https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/march/meat-and-dairy-companies-slow-to-commit-to-net-zero-emissions--n.html
[5] https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/ceh/images/recent-news-images/The%20meat%20industry%20is%20doing%20exactly%20what%20Big%20Oil%20does%20to%20fight%20climate%20action%20-%20The%20Washington%20Post.pdf
[6] https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/big-meat-dairy-firms-act-collectively-to-lobby-against-climate-action-new-study-finds/
fucking meat factories are killing the animals and the goddamn planet
That’s only if you believe the bull shit op-ed articles.
Oh, there is no cost to it?
We should at least start passing on the true cost of harmful things like meat onto the consumer and putting subsidies behind better alternatives. That will start to shift things. Trying to tell people they are doing the wrong thing won't matter to a lot of people who have no to little morals. But start to encourage them economically and it will have better outcomes.
Did I say there’s no cost to it? And no morals? Really? If you had an argument- you lost it right there.
Ah water is indeed wet.
You know that this can't possibly be true, because most meat and dairy companies do not have a lobbying arm, right? Right in the first sentence it says it's the top 10 largest, but let's go ahead and put some bullshit in the headline anyway right?
disclaimer in 1pt font: *100% margin of error
I mean, we all know the memes, but there has to be like a nuanced take take on why this is the case, right? Is it literally the case that they just don't give a goddamn about climate change and they're just going to get theirs while they can and to hell with everything else? Because it's going to be awful hard to keep your cows fed when climate change starts fucking up their feed crops, and we're pretty much there right now, as far as I understand it.
The entire system relies on infinite growth in a finite world, trying to find logic in it is futile, never mind ethics..
Yup, that's my understanding. They probably aren't full on deniers, they know it's real, they just don't want to do the hard work and take the pay cuts that will progress us forward into the future.
It's really simple, that second sentence is what it is. Hard to believe, but when you create a system that puts profits above everything else in the world, that's what they're going to do.
It's that they need to justify their existence to the capitalist machine. Making changes to account for climate change means lowered profits. It means diversifying, it may even mean shutting down the business entirely.
It's not just about direct profit, of course. Lots of jobs depend on them staying in business, and even if they just change their business model a bit, many of those jobs disappear. And as most people are encouraged to have a monolithic skill set instead of being more diversified, all those people are suddenly back to square one. Needing to learn a completely new trade just to live.
That's, of course, just a small part, but it's one that ensures that people turn out to vote against government reps who campaign on change and climate acceptance.
The vegan propaganda campaign is back at it again.
Back at what?
Stating uncomfortable facts about the world that people would otherwise gladly ignore.
You mean like the probably false article that started this discussion?
It's clickbait but it's also absolutely true. I get it's easier for you to not do any research and continue to think it's "probably false".
My suggestion to you is instead of half-engaging, just fully close your eyes. Just continue living in your fantasy world and stop engaging with this kind of content, while the rest of us continue to try to solve these real issues.
And my suggestion to you is- read the other 50-100 or so comments where people provided factual rebuttals to this bullshit article.
Talk about fantasy worlds.
I’m going to block you now as I generally don’t entertain futile arguments with blowhard vegans.
If there was any actual evidence against it you would've said "false" and not "probably false", but even in your own little make-believe world you couldn't bring yourself to that point.
Sharing propaganda.
Not at all biased when the article starts out with a likely out of context picture of a cow looking terrified and as if it's crying. Fuck corporations, all of them, fuck them all, but there are a few of us with severe enough allergies that without meat we would starve. Ableist bullshit to believe everyone can stop eating meat.
Personification is a dangerous tool
What allergies do you have such that without meat you would starve if I may ask?
they don't owe you their medical history and it's creepy to ask.
It's not creepy to ask a follow-up about information they volunteered in the first place.
what's the name of the person who raised you that you don't think that's creepy?
... What?
Hmm, okay.. no is also fine. I have just not heard of any such conditions before. I Googled for it and asked ChatGPT, but got nothing.
No, if they bring it up in conversation respectful questions are fair game.
I have a severe salicylate allergy to the point that 90% of veggies cause an allergic reaction for me. Aspirin tolerance therapy hasn't been an option because of the severity of my allergy. I have several documented nut allergies, among other true food allergies to various foods from shellfish, other fish, bananas, sweet potatoes ( and their family), as well as mustard etc etc, and then an impressive list of IgG reactions (food intolerances) that cause immune response in my digestive system. Amongst them is most grains, nuts, milk, yogurt, some cheeses. Although I'm not allergic to MSG because it's debated that's even possible, I do have severe migraines w/ aura triggered by foods with high glutamates like textured vegetable protein, aside from salicylate content of those proteins. What to hear what my body things of nitrates? I used to be a guy who could roll around in poison ivy without breaking out and was allergic to almost nothing. Then my autoimmune disease started and my body went nuts. Granted I'm a vast minority of people, but I'd rather not lose any more foods.
Wow, I never had heard of salicylates. If you combine that with your other allergies that indeed leaves you with a very restricted diet. What I understand is that you could still survive on a vegan diet, but you'd be extremely limited in what you can eat and perhaps have a hard time meeting your daily requirements. Are supplements working for you? I understand your point of view. Thanks for sharing.
I don't know if y'all know this but short term profits are much more important to rich old people that won't see the earth they created for their grand kids.
can't help but think the cow in that image knows what's up.
You know who else lobbies against these policies? Almost every other name brand company.
Nobody thinks it's JUST these companies that do it bud. Are you implying that means we can't call them out on it?
From the article:
I'm not so sure every other name brand company is fighting these specific initiatives tailored towards farming/agriculture
Fucking and??? These scumbags deserve to be called out AND FUCKING SHAMED. Fuck you for trying to defend them with this milquetoast whataboutism
Huh?
those are some upstanding humans you got there, U.S. meat and dairy.
stop hiding the humans behind 'companies'. name freakin names of the bad peoples.
I think we need to slow down on placing all the blame on cows and other ruminants. It’s not the farming that’s causing problems, it’s the fact that we’ve gotten away from regenerative agriculture, and how to actually work with the land.
My Wife is a part of a farm that just got the USDA Climate Smart grant. The grant basically outlines how to sequester more carbon into the soil by using cattle and other ruminants and doing pasture grazing rotations, using trees, and some other things. The thing that blows most people away when she talks about it is that cows are and never were the problem – it’s Big Ag.
The way of farming cattle nowadays is very inefficient and a problem for the environment. This is because of the ways cattle are finished before processing. Instead of being grass fed - grass finished, farmers send their cattle’s out to feed lots in the Midwest. They are jam packed in areas where they can’t adequately space out, which leads to an excess of their excrements in one spot. THIS is the problem. But it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
This problem only stems from the larger issue that Big Ag doesn’t care how land is managed or farmed as long as it’s baseline is about production. But it’s not like non-GMO and organic is easy to do, both growing and the paperwork, so it’s just bad all around….
Grassfed Cattle needs an infeasible amount of land. The only efficient or environmentally 'friendly' way would be substituting them with plant-based alternatives. Cows obviously are not the problems. It's us humans who breed them for the sole purpose of exploiting them when there are other, greener and more eithical alternatives
Edit: here a very informative video addressing most of the arguments in favor of grass-fed livestock
Edit 2: Another one by the same creator about regenerative grazing
You would expect conservatives to give a fuck about efficient use of resources but to them, being filthy rich is an efficient market too
https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
What is "Big Ag"?
Big Agriculture. Like Big Pharma or Big Tobacco
Got it, thanks. Thought you meant Big Silver (Ag on Periodic Table)
Blimey, is it Vegan Circle Jerk Day again already?
I still haven't had chance to take my decorations down from the last one.