UnderpantsWeevil comments on The "no-wash" movement is an absurd belief that systemic collapse can be solved by individual consumer choices, absolving the actual culprits of all responsibility.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

I can't speak to Quorn, although I'm a big fan of portobello mushrooms. By weight, it has not been my experience that mushrooms are cheaper than ground beef or chicken. But also, to say mushrooms aren't a popular and common part of the modern diet... that's obviously not true.

Seitan is awful. If you're looking that hard for a protein substitute, just eat beans. Jesus Christ.

Tofu is everywhere. Probably the most popular vegetarian option in the country by now. East Asians love it. West Coast liberals love it. But you really need cooking oil to make it work (which is expensive and really requires a full kitchen to use). And, again, not meaningfully cheaper than chicken legs or thighs.

None of these compare to staples like rice, corn, and beans, which regularly go for under $1/lb even in our inflated food markets.

People could, right now, choose the cheaper, healthier, ethical, and environmental option

People regularly revert to staples when the price of food climbs. But that's not an ethical choice, its an economic one.

Fast food also has a huge impact on the prevailing diet. As goes McDs, so goes the nation. And the agg industry has a huge influence over McDs, through their own propaganda campaigns to smear meat alternatives as unappealing.

But even beyond that, impossible/beyond substitutes continue to track at prices comparable to beef, especially when you use industrial preservation (pink slime) in transit and storage.

Demand for red meat increases with the economic wealth of a nation.

Wealth per capita, sure. But we've been consolidating our wealth for the last two decades. And, also, ecological collapse.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

You're not really understanding my argument. Those alternatives exist and people eat them, I'm saying that societal demand for animal protein is not plateauing nor shrinking; that means people are not choosing those alternatives over animal meat if the meat is available and affordable. That results in more greenhouse gases and water usage that is unsustainable.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

Those alternatives exist and people eat them

They exist in confined locales with very limited marketing and circulation. They are meat-alternatives as an aesthetic lifestyle choice, not material changes in cost of living. They certainly aren't bulk distributed as part of a public campaign to address malnutrition, backfill food deserts, or offer an alternative to cheap and poisonous fast food franchises.

You keep coming at this as an individualist. "People can just pick the other thing". No they fucking can't. Shouting "eat less meat!" out the window of your Tesla as you drive over the overpass that abuts an impoverished neighborhood, because you don't like what people are shopping for at the local 7-11 is fucking clueless.

Ignoring the enormous impact that Big Agg lobbyists have on what food ends up in school cafeterias or budget grocery store shopping aisles is, similarly, cloistered.

people are not choosing those alternatives

People are already choosing rice and beans as a consistent substitute for higher priced food. If you really want to decouple the population as a whole from the meat manufacturing process, you need to address the manufacturing process and stop getting angry at random people.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

You're going back and forth between saying that meat alternatives need to be subsidized to be adopted and generate demand, to then saying they are already eaten, to now saying they're only eaten in limited areas due to marketing. The goalposts in this conversation are floating down river without a paddle.

The core of my original thesis is that people who can currently afford to purchase and eat animal meat, do not choose to forgo it for the environment despite viable alternatives being available for most of them.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

meat alternatives need to be subsidized to be adopted and generate demand, to then saying they are already eaten

I'm point at cheap food and saying "We already eat this as a meat alternative" and then pointing at your list of alt-meats and saying "They need to be cheaper and more heavily distributed if you want market saturation".

The core of my original thesis is that people who can currently afford to purchase and eat animal meat, do not choose to forgo it

If that were true, alt-meats wouldn't exist. Clearly there's a market for alternatives. Clearly it is popular enough to be profitable for manufacturers.

But the need to make these alternatives profitable when real meat can receive subsidies and excess meat waste can be sold at a material loss while still netting people downstream a big chunk of revenue continues to hold back how far and fast alternatives can spread. Meat in American under the current agricultural model is effectively a luxury amenity provided by the state. The reason tofu costs as much as turkey is because of domestic agricultural policies.

Until you change those policies, alt-meats will be fighting the economic gravity of cheap, accessible traditional meals.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

I’m point at cheap food and saying “We already eat this as a meat alternative”

That wasn't my argument though. My point was that for people who can afford meat, they can already also afford the really REALLY similar plant meat, but still won't switch for cultural or taste reasons.

If that were true, alt-meats wouldn’t exist.

They exist, but the demand is very low because few people will actually give up animal meat for plant meat. That is my point.

Until you change those policies, alt-meats will be fighting the economic gravity of cheap, accessible traditional meals.

I believe it is far more difficult or even impossible in our current political system to change the policy to make meat more expensive. Under that reality, the only realistic option we have to is to circumvent the corporate captured political system by collectively ceasing purchasing animal meat in favor of any plant alternative (whatever is their preference).

It is much easier in theory to simply pick a different product at a store, than it is to convince politicians to pass legislation that will make meat more expensive, which will be perceived as simply making animal meat a luxury food for the rich (there is no political will to make that happen, and too much lobbying money from big agra).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

My point was that for people who can afford meat, they can already also afford the really REALLY similar plant meat

If they don't have a grocery store that carries it, they're facing a time-cost that exceeds any value add. If they are unaware its on the shelf, that won't matter. Hence the need for expanded marketing and counter-programming and public grocery stores that carry meatless alternatives front-and-center in the aisles normally reserved for giant hunks of dead animal.

the demand is very low because few people will actually give up animal meat

Plenty of people have given up animal meat. That's obviously not the problem. You point to India like its a small thing. That's 1/6th of the world's population.

The demand for rice and beans isn't low. The demand for tofu isn't low. It's a $500M market that's slated to hit $800M in the next five years. When the economic incentives are there, people take them. So long as we subsidize meat, they won't bother.

It is much easier in theory to simply pick a different product at a store

Not under the deluge of agricultural propaganda or the pride of place certain foods take relative to others. Hell - and I can't believe this continues to bare mentioning - not all grocery stores carry the same foods. Not all communities have grocery stores. Addressing this deficit goes a long way towards shifting dietary habits.

One big reason why India doesn't have a big consumption habit with meat is that Indian groceries don't stock meat. Pretending there's a choice to have beef in a Hindu society or bacon in an orthodox Muslim one is delusional.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent