> After all, if you only ate a little bit of meat, it would STILL be more sustainable to eat corn/soy-fed meat instead of grass-fed meat. Absolutely no. A smal

> After all, if you only ate a little bit of meat, it would STILL be more sustainable to eat corn/soy-fed meat instead of grass-fed meat. Absolutely no. A small amount of corn/soy fed meat where the corn and soy could have gone to human consumption (often with rain forests being burned down) is significant worse than a large amount of grass-fed meat in areas where farming is unsuitable and the need for biodiversity is higher than forestation. The whole point of the push for environmentally friendly farming is that the food should not do harm to the environment. That it does not scale is a massive problem, but that does not make environment harming food better. Harm is harm. It is a massive simplification to as saying that environmentally friendly farming has a higher impact on the environment because it take up too much land. Burning down rain forests is worse than using up a lot of land. Since we are currently not out of grass land but we are desperately running out of rain forests, getting people out of the market of meat and vegetables that come from areas that burn down rain forests for farming is a net-positive for the environment.