4 ms·

Most of the "real" processed meat has more overhead than its counterparts. Most people do not buy from a local butcher, to imply otherwise is turning a blind ey

Most of the "real" processed meat has more overhead than its counterparts. Most people do not buy from a local butcher, to imply otherwise is turning a blind eye. They buy big brand overly processed "meat" that comes in a cardboard box wrapped in plastic just the same. With respect to "crazy overhead" animals require land, food and water at an exponential rate of consumption compared to alternatives. They also taint and pollute groundwater sources and contribute to a significant amount of food recalls due to the above. Lastly in the metro I live there are about a half dozen alt meat "butcher" shops that supply alt meats to consumers and local restaurants. They're insanely popular and have been for over 5 years now. There's great brand recognition of those alt meats on local menus. You don't often see that with "real" meat because there's not as much differentiation in the product in real meats, just price. A lot of the above points are simply ignoring facts and the market. Hopefully, like with EVs, more people can continue to make positive progress and acceptance with alternatives to real meats as we've been seeing.

lqet 5y ago
> With respect to "crazy overhead" animals require land, food and water at an exponential rate of consumption compared to alternatives. Why is the overhead exponential in the rate of consumption?
- bee_rider 5y ago
  Well, the claim isn't "exponential in the rate of consumption," it is "exponential in comparison to alternatives" which is... not wrong really, just complete nonsense. E: Unfortunately "exponential" just sounds too cool, so everybody goes for it. To push back we will need pick something else cool sounding. Maybe "nigh incomparably larger"
  - xyzzy21 5y ago
    Mathematically that's wrong.
    - bee_rider 5y ago
      What is? Their original statement I guess. I think it is more unparsable than wrong. I think the we should invite the philosophers and linguists in. From a programming point of view -- fatal compilation error, "exponential" is not a comparator.
- windexh8er 5y ago
  Is the implication that alt meats aren't being consumed and therefore more wasteful? I'm not sure I'm following - because when I started to look at the waste in existing livestock lifecycle you begin to understand that it's never been efficient, nor has the industry done much to pivot with better methods. Here's a water footprint comparison [0]. Here's a study that showcases where: "Agriculture accounts for 92% of the freshwater footprint of humanity; almost one third relates to animal products." [1] And here's a study that showcases how many people could be fed by grain given the footprint of food livestock need to be raised and bred [2]. And here's data showcasing the significant delta of available land vs diet types for different nations [3], many being unsuitable without external use of land for food. [0] https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371713000024 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221237171... [2] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-m... [3] https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
  - lqet 5y ago
    > Is the implication that alt meats aren't being consumed and therefore more wasteful? No, I just didn't understand how the overhead of classic meat production can be "exponential", and I fail to find an explanation in your comment above. If your argument is that it is more wasteful to eat meat than to eat vegetables, I completely agree and this is hardly surprising. But this says nothing about the additional overhead and environmental impact of processing these vegetables into artificial meat on a global scale.
    - windexh8er 5y ago
      If the ingredient in a given product is known to be more environmentally impactful then the sun of the parts is, minimally, representative of those ingredients. It's well known, as you stated, that plants are less impactful on our world. The data linked in my parent comment showcases this. Alt meats are mostly plant based. Processing of livestock vs plants is much more costly, so I'm not sure where the disconnect is.

lqet 5y ago

> With respect to "crazy overhead" animals require land, food and water at an exponential rate of consumption compared to alternatives. Why is the overhead exponential in the rate of consumption?

bee_rider 5y ago
Well, the claim isn't "exponential in the rate of consumption," it is "exponential in comparison to alternatives" which is... not wrong really, just complete nonsense. E: Unfortunately "exponential" just sounds too cool, so everybody goes for it. To push back we will need pick something else cool sounding. Maybe "nigh incomparably larger"
- xyzzy21 5y ago
  Mathematically that's wrong.
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    What is? Their original statement I guess. I think it is more unparsable than wrong. I think the we should invite the philosophers and linguists in. From a programming point of view -- fatal compilation error, "exponential" is not a comparator.
windexh8er 5y ago
Is the implication that alt meats aren't being consumed and therefore more wasteful? I'm not sure I'm following - because when I started to look at the waste in existing livestock lifecycle you begin to understand that it's never been efficient, nor has the industry done much to pivot with better methods. Here's a water footprint comparison [0]. Here's a study that showcases where: "Agriculture accounts for 92% of the freshwater footprint of humanity; almost one third relates to animal products." [1] And here's a study that showcases how many people could be fed by grain given the footprint of food livestock need to be raised and bred [2]. And here's data showcasing the significant delta of available land vs diet types for different nations [3], many being unsuitable without external use of land for food. [0] https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371713000024 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221237171... [2] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-m... [3] https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
- lqet 5y ago
  > Is the implication that alt meats aren't being consumed and therefore more wasteful? No, I just didn't understand how the overhead of classic meat production can be "exponential", and I fail to find an explanation in your comment above. If your argument is that it is more wasteful to eat meat than to eat vegetables, I completely agree and this is hardly surprising. But this says nothing about the additional overhead and environmental impact of processing these vegetables into artificial meat on a global scale.
  - windexh8er 5y ago
    If the ingredient in a given product is known to be more environmentally impactful then the sun of the parts is, minimally, representative of those ingredients. It's well known, as you stated, that plants are less impactful on our world. The data linked in my parent comment showcases this. Alt meats are mostly plant based. Processing of livestock vs plants is much more costly, so I'm not sure where the disconnect is.